Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1981 OTA SolarPowerSatellites
1981 OTA SolarPowerSatellites
August 1981
NTIS order #PB82-108846
Foreword
The energy difficulties the Nation has faced over the past decade have given
rise to an increased awareness of the potential long-term, inexhaustible, or
renewable energy technologies. This assessment responds to a request by the House
Committee on Science and Technology for an evaluation of the energy potential of
one of the most ambitious and long-term of these technologies, the solar power
satellite (SPS).
In assessing SPS, OTA has taken into account the preliminary nature of SPS
technology by comparing four alternative SPS systems across a broad range of
issues: their technical characteristics, long-term energy supply potential, international and military implications, environmental impacts, and institutional effects.
The SPS options are also compared to potentially competitive future energy
technologies in order to identify how choices among them might be made. In addition, OTA developed a set of Federal research and funding options to address the
central questions and uncertainties identified in the report.
We were greatly aided by the advice of the SPS advisory panel, as well as by the
participants in three specialized workshops: one on alternative SPS systems, one on
public opinion, and another on competing energy supply technologies. The contributions of a number of contractors, who provided important analyses, and of
numerous individuals who gave generously of their time and knowledge, are
gratefully appreciated.
Director
...
Ill
Paul Craig
Jerry Grey
University of California
S. David Freeman
John J. Sheehan
United Steelworkers of America
Graham SiegeI
Grant Hansen
SDC Corp.
Eilene Galloway
Russell Hensley
Aetna Life & Casualty
Consultant
Karl Gawell
Solar Energy Research Institute
Peter G laser
Maureen Lamb
Consultant
J. C. Randolph
University
Charles Warren
Attorney
University of Indiana
Joe G. Foreman
Naval Research Laboratories
John D. G. Rather
The B.D.M. Corp.
Kenneth Billman
Electric Power Research Institute
Jerry Grey
American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics
Fred Sterzer
RCA Laboratories
Hubert P. Davis
Eagle Engineering
Henry M. Foley
Colurnbia University
Leonard David
National Space Institute
Ben Bova
OMNI
Chris E If ring
Office of Technology Assessment
Clifflyn Bromling
Bromling and Associates
Joe Foreman
Naval Research Laboratories
Mike Casper
Carlton College
Jerry Grey
American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics
Earl Cook
Texas A&M
Skip Laitner
Community Action Research Croup
of Iowa, Inc.
Maureen Lamb
Consultant
Jenifer Robinson
Office of Technology Assessment
Louis Slesin
Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc.
Peter Drummond
McDonnel-Douglas Astronautics
William Metz
Consultant
Charles Baker
Argonne National Laboratory
Lessly Goudarzi
International Energy Associates,
Limited
David Morris
Institute for Local Self Reliance
Piet Bos
Electric Power Research Institute
Glen Brandvold
Sandia National Laboratory
Clifflyn Bromling
Bromling & Associates
Paul Craig
University of California
iv
Kenneth Hub
Argonne National Laboratory
Jerry Karaganis
Edison Electric Institute
John Lamarsh
Polytechnic Institute of New York
Kenneth Ling
Applied Solar Energy Corp.
James Moyer
Southern California Edison
Larry Ruff
Brook haven National Laboratory
Frank von Hippel
Princeton University
Gordon Woodcock
Boeing Aerospace Co.
Stefi Weisburd
Administrative Staff
Marian Grochowski
Lisa Jacobson
Lillian Quigg
Edna Saunders
Yvonne White
Contributors
Clifflyn Bromling
Arlene Maclin
Alan Crane
William Metz
John Furber
David Morris
Institute for Local Self Reliance
Mark Gersovitz
Princeton University
Jerry Grey
Barry Smernoff
Smernoff & Associates
Kathie S. Boss
Debra M. Datcher
Joe Henson
Acknowledgments
OTA thanks the following people who took time to provide information or to review part or all of the
study.
Martin Abromavage, Argonne National Laboratory
Edwin Beatrice, Letterman Army Institute of
Research
Administration
Agency
Marcia Smith, Congressional/ Research Service
Institute
Contents
Chapter
1.
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Issues and Find ngs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
4.
Policy Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
5.
6.
Alternative Systems
for SPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
SPS inContext. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
7.
2.
3.
8.
9.
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
Page
23
Chapter 1
Contents
Page
Current Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Energy Context . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
......................
Public Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
...............................
14
LIST OF TABLES
Page
The solar power satellite (SPS) concepts envision using the constant availability of sunlight in space to generate baseload electricity
on Earth. Orbiting satellites would collect
solar energy and beam it to Earth where it
would be converted to electricity. Three major
alternative systems have been suggested.
Mirror transmission.
Orbiting mirrors
would reflect sunlight directly to central
locations on Earth. Terrestrial solar receivers would convert the resulting 24hour illumination to electricity.
CURRENT STATUS
Too little is currently known about the technical, economic, and environmental aspects of SPS
to make a sound decision whether to proceed
with its development and deployment. I n addition, without further research an SPS demonstration or systems-engineering verification
program would be a high-risk venture. An SPS
research program could ultimately assure an adequate information base for these decisions. However, the urgency of any proposed research effort depends strongly on the perception of future electricity demand, the variety and cost of
supply, and the estimated speed with which
the major technical and environmental uncertainties associated with the SPS concept can
be resolved. For instance, if future demand
growth is expected to be low it may not be necessary to initiate a specific SPS research program at this time, especially if more conventional electric-generating technologies remain
acceptable. If this is not the case or if demand
growth is expected to be high, SPS might be
needed early in the 21st century, and a timely
start of a research effort would be justified.
Should it be decided not to start a dedicated
SPS research effort now, it may be desirable to
Microwave concept
Photo credit: Painting by Frank G. Ellis, Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.
Laser concept
Photo credit: National Aeronaut/es and Space Administration
Mirrored concept
SOURCE: K. W. Billman, Space Orbiting Light Augmentation Reflector Energy
System: A Look at Alternative Systems, SPS Program Review,
June 1979.
search program is instituted, it should investigate those areas most critical to SPS economic, technical, and environmental feasibility Particular attention should be given to
studying and comparing the various technical
alternatives; but the feasibility of SPS also ultimately depends on its social, political, and institutional viability. Thus, a research program should
continue to explore these aspects of SPS development and deployment as well. The following
are the major stages such a program wouId
have to go through:
SPS Program Steps
Development stages
Systems engineering
Demonstration satellite
Deployment
Ch. 1Summary 5
ENERGY CONTEXT
Even if it were needed and work began now,
a commercial SPS is unlikely to be available
before 2005-15 because of the many uncertainties and the long Ieadtime needed for testing and
demonstration. Therefore, SPS could not be expected to constitute a significant part of electricity supply before 2015-25. By that time, the
United States will be importing very little
foreign oil. Consequently, SPS cannot reduce our
dependence on imported oil in this century.
However, if efficient electric vehicles or other
electric end-use technologies are developed by
about 2010, electricity from SPS or other
sources could substitute for synthetic liquid
fuels generated from coal or biomass.
Along with other electric generating technologies, SPS has the potential to supply several
hundred gigawatts of baseload electrical
power to the U.S. grid by the mid-21st century.
However, the ultimate need for SPS and its
rate of development wiII depend on the rate of
increase in demand for electricity, and the
ability of other energy supply options to meet
ultimate demand more competitively. S P S
would be needed most if coal and/or conventional nuclear options are constrained and if demand for electricity is high.
An aggressive terrestrial solar and conservation program that could lead to an electricity
demand level of only 8 Quads electric (Qe)* in
2030 (equal to current consumption) would
make the development of SPS and other large
new centralized generating technologies less
urgent in the United States. In any event, coal
could continue to fuel the greatest share of
U.S. electrical needs well into the 21st century,
provided no barriers to its use become evident.
Coal, conventional nuclear, terrestrial solar in
its many forms, and geothermal usage could
*A Quad is equal to 1 quadrillion Btu. It is equivalent to the
energy contained in 500,000 barrels of oil per day for 1 year, and
is also approximately the electric energy produced by a 33,500MW generator running without interruption for a year As used in
this report, Quads electric (Qe) of demand refer to the energy
equivalent of electricity at point of use Primary energy input at
the generating source of electricity IS somewhat more than three
times these figures
satisfy the entire domestic electricity requirement for demands totaling 20 Qe (2.5 times
current level) or less in 2030. If demand is
higher than 20 Qe, then presumably one or
more of the following, SPS, breeders, and/or
fusion will be needed. Electricity demand will
be strongly affected by the degree that efficient technologies for using electricity can be
developed. Such technologies can have the effect of lowering the overall cost of electricity
compared to competing energy forms.
If generation from coal on a large scale
proves to be unacceptable, domestic electrical
consumption of 8 Qe or less could still be met
by nuclear, geothermal, and terrestrial solar
(central pIant and onsite) technology. For demands up to about 20 Qe, SPS could compete
with terrestrial solar, breeders, and/or fusion
for a share of the centralized baseload market.
If electricity demand exceeds 20 Qe, it will be
difficult to satisfy that demand without vigorous development of al I renewable or inexhaustible forms of generating capacity. For
these higher demand levels, SPS, breeders, and
fusion could all share in supplying U.S. electricity needs. A 30 Qe (3.8 times current consumption) total demand wouId create a market
potential for up to 6 Qe of SPS-delivered energy (225,000-Mw-installed generating capacity
at 90-percent capacity factor). *
Upper Range of Possible SPS Use* *
Electric demand
in 2030 (Qe]
75
20.0
30.0
*Current U.S. generating capacity is about 600,000 MW. Current demand represents about 45 percent of this capacity operating 100 percent of the time,
**Coal is used as the swingfuel for our analysis because it has
the largest resource base of any of the current forms of centralized, electric generating technologies It is expected that conventional nuclear would be available but its smaller resource base
would prevent it from having the large effect on generation-mix
choices that coal does It is assumed that breeders, which would
greatly extend the nuclear fission resource base, would be comparable to SPS and fusion in terms of its rate of market penetration (ie, 5 to 10 GW/yr)
6 Solar
Power Satellties
SPS is designed to provide baseload electricity. By contrast, except for ocean thermal energy conversion, terrestrial solar electrical generation is intermittent. Because our energy
future will require a mix of baseload and intermittent generating technologies, without storage capability, terrestrial solar would not compete directly with SPS. However, the development of inexpensive storage, if achieved,
could enable terrestrial solar electricity generation in all its forms-wind, solar thermal, and
solar photovoltaicsto assume some share of
baseload capacity.* These technologies are less
complex, have fewer uncertainties, and are
considerably nearer to commercial realization
than SPS. Furthermore, they have the flexibility to be introduced into the electrical grid in
*The percentage share of baseload capacity which would be
feasible for these technologies to assume would depend on their
geographical location and the time of year (see ch 6)
Photo
credit:
EPA-DocumericaGene
Daniels
Photo credit: Texas Power & Light
Ch. lSummary
cost is high. For fusion, much of the manufacturing infrastructure for the balance of plant,
i.e., other than the fusion device itself, is in
place. Most of the supportive infrastructure
for SPS, including the industrial plants and the
transportation system, would have to be developed.
Scale
Satellite size
Number of satellites
Power/satellite
Mass
Land use rectenna site
2
k m 1,000
MW
Energy
55 km2
60 (300 GW total)
5,000 MW
5 x104 tonnes/satellite; 0.1 kW/kg
174 km2 (including buffer)
x 60=10,440 km2
35
18 km2
Not projected
1,500 MW
Less mass than reference/O. 1 kW/kg
50 km2
Electricity
Fairly centralized
23 mW/cm2 Gaussian
distribution
5 km2
Not projected
500 Mw
Less mass than reference/O.05 kW/kg
0.6 km2
50 km2
916 (810 GW total)
135,000 MW
2 x 105 tonnes mirror system 2 kW/kg
1,000 km2
33
1.2
7.4
Electricity
Less centralized
Unknown
Electricity, light
Highly centralized
1.15 kW/m2 (1 Sun)
Atmosphere
Transmission
Effluents
Electromagnetic
Interference
Bioeffects
National security
weapons potential
Tropospheric heating might modify weather over smaller area; problems with clouds?
LEO orbit, smaller size, smaller launch vehicles
RFI from direct coupling, spurious noise, and harmonics, Impacts on communications,
satellites etc from 245 GHz Problem for radio astronomers (GEO obscures portion of
sky always) optical reflections from satellites and LEO stations WiII change the night sky
Problem for optical astronomy, optical reflechens and Interference from beam change
night sky in vicinity of sites
Microwave bioeffects midbeam could cause thermal heating, unknown effects of long
term exposure to low-level microwaves Ecosystem alteratlon? Birds avoid/attracted
to beam?
Psychological and physiological effects of 24hour illumination not known. Possible ocular
hazard if viewed with binoculars? Ecosystem
alteration
Vulnerability
International
smaller SOLARES systems, e g , IO GW/site would be possible and probably more desirable
b
c
u.s. Congress
PUBLIC ISSUES
Public opinion about SPS is currently not
well-formed. Discussion of SPS has been limited to a small number of public interest
groups and professional societies. In general,
those in favor of SPS also support a vigorous U.S.
space program, whereas many of those who oppose SPS fear that it would drain resources from
small-scale, terrestrial solar technologies. Assuming acceptance of a decision to deploy SPS,
public discussion is likely to be most intense at
the siting stage of its development. Key issues
that may enter into public thinking include
environment and health risks, land-use, military implications, and costs. Centralization in
the decisionmaking process and in the ownership and control of SPS may also be important.
From the standpoint of public perceptions, the
siting of land-based receivers could be an
obstacle to the deployment of SPS unless:
the public is actively involved in the siting
process;
health and environment uncertainties are
diminished; and
local residents are justly compensated for
the use of their land.
non ionizing radiation, electromagnetic interference with other systems and astronomy, and
radiation exposure for space workers. More research in these areas would be required before
decisions about the deployment or development of SPS could be made. Little information is currently available on the environmental impacts of SPS designs other than the
reference system. Clearly, environmental
assessments of the alternative systems will be
needed if choices are to be made between SPS
designs.
Too little is known about the biological effects
of long-term exposure to low-level microwave
Ch. 1Summary . 11
An artists concept of an offshore antenna that would receive microwave energy beamed from
a large space solar power collector in geosynchronous orbit
tional standards. Even more stringent microwave standards couId increase land requirements and system cost or alter system design
and feasibility. In Iight of the widespread proliferation of electromagnetic devices and the
current controversy surrounding the use of
microwave technologies, it is clear that increased understanding of the effects of microwaves on living things is vitally needed even if
SPS is never deployed.
Exposure of space workers to ionizing radiation
is a potentially serious problem for SPS systems
that operate in geosynchronous orbit (CEO). Recent estimates indicate that the radiation dose
of SPS reference system personnel in CEO
would exceed current limits set for astronauts
and could result in a measurable increase in
Power transmission
Occupational health
and safety
Environmental
impact
Microwave
bEffects of Iow-level
Higher risk than for .
public; protective
chronic exposure to microclothing required for
waves are unknown.
Psychological effects of
terrestrial worker.
microwave beam as weapon. Accidental exposure to
high-intensity beam in
Adverse aesthetic effects
space potentially severe
on appearance of night sky.
but no data.
Lasers
Ocular hazard?
Psychological effects of
laser as weapon are
possible.
Adverse aesthetic effects
on appearance of night
sky are possible.
bTropospheric heating
could modify weather.
Ecosystem: effect of 24hr light on growing
cycles of plants and circadian rhythms of animals.
b potential interference
with optical astronomy.
Ocular hazard?
Psychological effect of
24-hr sunlight.
Adverse aesthictic effects
on appearance of night
sky are possible.
Ocular hazard?
b Potential interference
Transportation and
space operation
Launch and recovery
HLLV
PLV
COTV
POTV
Ch. 1Summary
13
Occupational health
and safety
Environmental impact
bEmission of water vapor
could alter natural
hydrogen cycle; extent and
implications are not wellknown.
b
Effect of COTV argon ions
on magnetosphere and
plasma-sphere could be
great but unknown.
Depletion of ozone layer
by effluents expected to
be minor but uncertain.
Noise.
Terrestrial activities
Toxic material exposure.
Measurable increase of
air and water pollution.
Land-use disturbance.
Measurable increase of
air and water pollution.
Solid wastes.
Measurable increase of
air and water pollution.
Solid wastes.
Exposure to toxic
materials.
Construction
Measurable land
disturbance.
Measurable local increase
of air and water pollution.
Measurable land
disturbance.
Measurable local increase
of air and water pollution.
Noise.
Measurable local
increase of air and water
pollution.
Accidents.
Receiving antenna
bLand usereduced
property value, aesthetics,
vulnerability y (less land
for solid-state, laser
options; more for reference
and mirrors).
Waste heat.
High-voltage
transmission lines
(not unique to SPS)
Mining
Land disturbance
(stripmining, etc.).
Measurable increase of
air and water pollution.
Solid waste generation
Strain on production
capacity of gallium
arsenide, sapphire, silicon,
graphite fiber, tungsten,
and mercury.
Manufacturing
a
b
EM fieldseffects
uncertain.
impacts based on SPS systems as currently defined and do not account for offshore receivers or possible mitigating system
Research priority.
intensity EM fields
effects uncertain.
modifications.
SPACE CONTEXT
The hardware, experienced personnel, and industrial infrastructure generated by an SPS project
would significantly increase U.S. space capabilities and, in conjunction with other major
space programs, could lay the groundwork for
the industrialization, mining, and perhaps the
settlement of space. NASA is likely to play a
major role, especialIy in the initial stages of development. Non-SPS programs could be aided
by accelerated development of transportation
and other systems; on the other hand, they
could be harmed by the diversion of funds and
attention to SPS. An SPS research and development program would be in accord with current
space policy that calIs for peaceful development of commercial and scientific space
capab i I i t i es
Given the current absence of long-term program goals for the U.S. civilian space program,
it is difficult to predict the effects of an SPS
project on NASA plans or on private-sector capabilities These effects will need to be carefully considered.
Chapter 2
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2
INTRODUCTION
As the United States and the world have begun to face the realities of living with a limited
supply of oil and gas, and the political uncertainties that accompany impending scarcity,
the search for reliable, safe means of using the
radiant energy of the Sun has intensified. Solar
radiation is already used in many parts of the
Nation for direct space heating and for heating
water. It can also produce electricity by photovoltaic and thermoelectric conversion. However, nearly all terrestrial solar collectors and
converters suffer from the drawbacks of the
day-night cycle. On Earth, sunlight is only
available during daylight hours, but energy is
consumed around the clock. In the absence of
inexpensive storage, nighttime and cloud cover limit the potential of terrestrial solar technologies (with the exception of ocean thermal
energy conversion) to supply the amounts of
energy required for use in homes, businesses,
and industries. By placing the solar collectors
in space where sunlight is intense and constant, and then beaming energy to Earth, the
solar power satellite (SPS) seeks to assure a
baseload supply of electricity for terrestrial
consumers.
Several radically different versions of SPS
have been proposed, most of which will be described and analyzed in this report. In the most
extensively studied version, a large satellite
would be placed in the geosynchronous orbit
so that it remains directly above a fixed point
on the Earths Equator. Solar photovoltaic
panels aboard the satellite would collect the
Suns radiant energy and convert it to electricity. Devices would then convert the electricity to microwave radiation and transmit it
to Earth where it would be collected, reconverted to electricity, and delivered to the electric power grid. An alternative concept envisions using large orbiting reflectors to reflect
solar radiation to the ground, creating immense solar farms where sunlight would be
available around the clock. Laser beams have
also been proposed for the energy transmission
medium. These concepts may have significantly different economic prospects, as well as dif-
ferent degrees of technical feasibility. In addition, they would affect the environment and
political and financial institutions in different
ways.
The first serious discussion of the SPS concept appeared in 1968. 2 During the next few
years several companies conducted preliminary analyses with some support from the Advanced Programs Off ice of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 3
In May 1973, the Subcommittee on Space
Science and Applications of the House Science
and Astronautics Committee heId the first congressional hearings on the concept.4 Following
those hearings, NASA began a series of experiments in microwave transmission of power at
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. In 1975, NASA
created an SPS study office at the Johnson
Space Center that performed several additional systems studies. A number of papers
were published, s culminating in an extensive
report that established most of the basis for
the Department of Energys (DOE) reference
system design. 6
In the beginning it had been assumed that
NASA would be the Federal agency with prime
responsibility for satellite power stations.
However, the Solar Energy Act of 1974 clearly
placed the responsibility for all solar energy
R&D aimed at terrestrial use under the jurisdic1
P E Claser, The Future of Power From the Sun, lntersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (l ECEC), IEEE publication 68C-21 -Energy, 1968, pp. 98-103,
2 P E Glaser, Power From the Sun: Its Future, Science 162,
NOV 22, 1968, pp. 857-886,
P E Claser, O. E, Maynard, J. Mockovciak, and E, L, Ralph,
Feasibility Study of a Satellite Solar Power Station, Arthur D.
Little Inc , NASA CR-2357 (contract No. NAS 3-16804), February
1974.
Power From the Sun via Satellite, hearings before the
Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications and Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science and Astronautics,
U S House of Representatives, May 7, 22, 24,1973.
5Wlll lam J. Richard, Geosynchronous Satellite Solar Power,
ch, 8 of So/ar Energy for Earth: An A /AA Assessment, H. J. Kill ian,
G L Dugger, and J. Grey (eds.), AlAA, Apr. 21, 1975, pp. 59-71.
(Also see abridged version in Astronautics and Aeronautics,
November 1975, pp. 46-52.)
ln(tlal Technical, Environmental, and Economic Evaluation
of space solar Power Concepts, report No. j SC-11568, VOIS. I
and II, NASA, Aug. 31, 1976.
17
tion of the Energy Research and Development another round of hearings, 2 and eventually
Administration (ERDA). ERDA set up a Task passed by the full House. No Senate bill was inGroup on Satellite Power Stations, and in No- troduced. A similar bill,13 reintroduced in 1979,
vember 1976 recommended two options for was passed by the House on November 16,
conducting a joint ERDA/NASA 3-year SPS 1979, but again died in the Senate.
concept development and evaluation proThe DOE/NASA Concept Development and
gram, one costing $12 million and one $19 mil14
established to idenEvaluation Programwas
lion. ERDA elected to pursue a median
tify and evaluate the possible technical, encourse, and proposed a 3-year, $15.5 million efvironmental, social, institutional, and economfort which began in fiscal year 1977, the SPS
ic aspects of the SPS concept. It has generated
Concept Development and Evaluation Proa broad range of reports that reflect this ingram.
tent. 5 In order to have a fixed technical basis
ERDAs efforts were given impetus by two for the study, DOE and NASA developed two
congressional hearings, one held in January versions of a reference satellite power sta1976 by the Subcommittee on Aerospace Tech- tion system, based on extensive studies undernology and National Needs of the Senate taken by two NASA contractors. 16 17 Although
Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee 8 the reference system represented the best
and one held in February 1976 by two subcomchoice based on the information available at
mittees of the House Committee on Science
the time, it was not intended to be the last
and Technology.9
word in systems definition; the multitude of
other options that have been proposed since
When DOE was created in 1977, it estabalso need to be evaluated before ultimately
lished a special Satellite Power System project
settling on a baseline system design.
office in the Office of Energy Research to complete the Concept Development and EvaluaOTA was requested by the House Committion Program. Its final report was released on
tee on Science and Technology to pursue an
December 1, 1980.0
independent study to assess the potential of
the
SPS system as an alternative source of
The SPS research, development, and demonenergy. 8 Hence, this study primarily adstration bill, which was introduced in the
dresses the benefits and drawbacks of SPS as
House of Representatives on January 30, 1978,
an energy system. It also identifies the key
reflected a desire by a number of Members of
Congress to accelerate the evaluation of SPS
and to introduce a more ambitious technology
Solar Power Satellite, hearings before the Subcommittee
verification effort. It was reported out by the
on Space Science and Applications and the Subcommittee on
Advanced Energy Technologies and Energy Conservation ReScience and Technology Committee after
7
Robert A. Summers (chairman), Final Report of the ERDA
Task Croup on Satellite Power Station, report No. ERDA-76/l 48,
November 1976.
Solar Power for Satellites, hearings before the Subcommittee on Aerospace Technology and National Needs of the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, U S. Senate, J an, 19,
21,1976, GPO stock No, 66-608-0, 1976
Solar Satellite Power System Concepts, hearings before the
Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications and the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives, Feb. 20,1976 (No 67)
Satellite Power Systems Concept Development and Evaluation Program, Program Assessment Report Statement of Findings, DOE/E R-0085, November 1980,
Ronnie Flippo, Solar Power Satellite Research, Development, and Demonstration Program Act of 1978, H .R 10601, J an.
30,1978.
Ch. 2Introduction
SPS technical options and costs. The major task of the workshop was to assess the
DOE/NASA reference system from a technical perspective and to study alternatives. It discussed the key uncertainties of
each major system or subsystem that has
been suggested in SPS literature and
chose four generic systems for further
evaluation in later workshops: 1) the reference system, 2) a solid-state variant of
the reference system, 3) a laser system,
and 4) a mirror system.
SPS public opinion issues. Participants
with experience in analyzing and responding to a variety of public interests and
concerns met to identify the major issues
that could affect the public perceptions
of SPS. The workshop was not an exercise
in public participation. Rather, it sought a
79
Chapter 3
Contents
Page
Page
50
50
52
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TableNo.
l, Characterization of Four Alternative SPS
Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
2. Major lssues Arising in SPS Debate . . . . . . . . 42
3. Summary of SPS Environrnental Impacts. . . . 43
4. SPS Systerns Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
LIST OF F GURES
Figure No.
Page
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3 The Laser Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4 The Mirror Concept (SOLARES) . . . . . . . . . . . 28
TECHNICAL OPTIONS
What technical options might be available
for SPS?*
A number of technical options for the solar
power satellite (SPS) have been proposed. Because SPS is a developing technology, the specific design parameters of each of these approaches are evolving rapidly as research continues. Hence no single option is completely
defined, nor are there detailed systems studies
of any designs other than the National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Department
of Energy (NASA/DOE) reference system
that uses microwaves for transmitting energy
from space to Earth. The reference design is
the basis for the NASA/DOE environmental, societal, and comparative assessments. The two
other major SPS variants depend on laser transmission of power from space and on reflected
sunlight.
Microwave Transmission
The Reference System Design
The reference system satellite conceptual
design consists of a 55 square kilometer
( k m2)** flat array of photovoltaic solar cells
located in the geostationary orbit 35,800 km
above the Earths Equator (fig. 1). The cells
convert solar energy into direct-current (de)
electricity that is conducted to a 1-km diameter microwave transmitting antenna mounted
at one end of the photovoltaic array. Microwave transmitting tubes (klystrons) convert the
electrical current to radio-frequency power at
2.45 gigaHertz (GHZ), and transmit it to Earth.
A ground antenna receives the electromagnetic radiation and rectifies it back to direct
current; hence its designation rectenna. The
direct-current (de) power can be inverted to
alternating-current (ac) and stepped up to
*See ch. 5.
**Equivalent to about 13,600 acres
23
Array
structure
Solar cell array
SOURCE: C. C. Kraft, The Solar Power Satellite Concept, NASA publication No. JSCp14898, July 1979.
Laser Transmission
It would become possible to use low Sunsynchronous rather than high geostationary orbits for the massive space power
conversion subsystem (a Sun-synchronous
orbit is a near-polar low Earth orbit that
keeps the satellite in full sunlight all the
time while the Earth rotates beneath it).
The primary laser would then beam its
Reflected sunlight
cell
Solid-state
amplifier
panel
83-316 0 - 81 - 3
Relay unit(s)
Ground site
Synchronous r e l a y s
Occulted
power
satellites
Sun
27
Reflected Sunlight
Health and safety hazard. The beam intensity would be great enough to constitute a
health and safety hazard. Preventive
measures could include a tall perimeter
wall, and/or a warning and defocusing
system.
Several types of continuous wave lasers currently exist. Of these, the most highly developed and most appropriate laser for SPS would
be the electric discharge laser (EDL). At present, EDL models have achieved only modest
power levels and relatively low efficiencies
when operated in a continuous mode.
Another future option that has been considered is the solar-pumped laser. In this device,
concentrated sunlight is used directly as the
exciting agent for the laser gases. Although a
solar-pumped laser has been built and operated successfully at NASA Langley, it would require considerable basic research, development, and testing before it could be a realistic
prospect for SPS.
Free electron lasers (FELs) offer another
possible means of transmitting power from
space. These new devices are powered by a
beam of high-energy electrons which oscillate
in a magnetic field in such a way that they
radiate energy in a single direction. Although
the FEL has been demonstrated experimentalIy, it is too early to predict whether it would
Instead of placing the solar energy conversion system in orbit, large orbiting mirrors
could be used to reflect sunlight to groundbased solar conversion systems. Thus, the systerns space segment could be much simpler
and therefore cheaper and more reliable.
One such system would consist of a number
of roughly circular plane mirrors in various
nonintersecting Earth orbits, each of which
directs sunlight to the collectors of a number
of ground-based solar-electric powerplants as
it passes over them. Conversion from sunlight
to electricity would occur on the surface of the
Earth.
In one approach, (the so-called SOLARES
baseline concept) about 916 mirrors, each 50
k m2 in area, would be required for a global
power system projected to produce a total of
810 gigawatts (GW) (more than three times current U S. production) from six individual sites.
This is not necessarily the optimum SOLARES
system. It was selected here to demonstrate
the magnitude of power that might be
achieved with such a system. However, a number of different mirror sizes, orbits, and ground
station sizes are possible. A more feasible option would be a lower orbit system (2,100 km)
to supply 10 to 13 GW per terrestrial site. One
of the principal features of the SOLARES concept is that it could be used for either solarthermal or solar photovoltaic terrestrial plants.
The fact that energy conversion would take
place on the surface of the Earth keeps the
mass in orbit small, thereby reducing transportation costs.
However, a major disadvantage of such a
mirror system would be that the entire system
would require an extremely large contiguous
land area for the terrestrial segment (see table
4, p. 47). As with the laser designs, transmission
through the atmosphere would be subject to
SOURCE: K. W. Billman, Space Orbiting Light Augmentation Reflector Energy System: A Look at Alternative Systems,
SPS Program Review, June 1979.
SPS Scale
As presently conceived, the reference system is a large-scale project that has the potential of delivering hundreds of gigawatts of elec-
29
SPS would require a massive industrial infrastructure for space transportation and construction and for related terrestrial construction, comparable in scale to that developed for
existing ground-based coal and nuclear systems.
These estimates included the costs of the entire transportation system, the costs of establishing the launch sites and construction facilities in low-Earth and geosynchronous orbits,
as well as all of the component development
Space transportation. The reference system assumes the construction and use of a
large third-generation, shuttle-type transportation system. Construction of a single
reference system satellite (silicon photovoltaics) would require approximately 190
flights of an HLLV. However, launch vehicles somewhat larger than the current
shuttle, but smaller than the HLLV, are capable of operating with less load per flight
but with many more flights and might be
more economical. I n addition, an intermediate size vehicle would be more appropriate for other uses in space. No other
currently planned space project envisions
using vehicles the size of an HLLV.
Space construction. SPS would require
construction bases in low Earth orbit and,
for some designs, at geostationary orbit. It
might be possible to achieve substantial
cost reductions by constructing the satellites in low Earth orbit and transporting
them to geostationary orbit, rather than
by constructing them in geostationary orbit.
costs
Although the costs of many SPS components
have been estimated by a number of different
agencies, it is not yet possible to establish
them with any reasonable level of confidence.
Reference design
Information matrix
Laser system
SOLARES
(baseline)a
costs
R&D
Demonstration
Construction
Operation
Dollars/kW
$400 million
$102 billion DDT&E (one sateilite)
$11,5 billion/satellite
$200 million/yr-5GW
$2,900 -19,000/kWc
55 km2
60 (300 GW total)
5,000 MW
5 X104 tonnes/satellite, O 1 kW/kg
174 km2 (including buffer)
x 60=10,440 km 2
35
18 km2
Not projected
1,500 MW
Less mass than reference/O 1 kW/kg
50 km2
5 km2
Not projected
500 MW
Less mass than reference/O .05 kW/kg
2
0.6 km
135,000 MW
5
2 x 10 tonnes mirror system 2 kW/kg
2
1,000 km
33
1,2
7.4
Electricity
Fairly centralized
23 mW/cm2 Gaussian
Electricity
Less centralized
Unknown
Electricity, light
Highly centralized
1.15 kW/m 2 (1 Sun)
Scale
Satellite size
Number of satellites
Power/satellite
Mass
Land use rectenna site
2
km 1,000 MW
Energy
distribution
50 km2
916 (810 GW total)
Atmosphere
Transmission
Effluents
Electromagnetic
interference
Bioeffects
National security
weapons potential
Tropospheric heating might modify weather over smaller area; problems with clouds?
LEO orbit, smaller size; smaller launch vehicles
RFI from direct coupling, spurious noise, and harmonics: impacts on communications,
satellites etc from 245 GHz Problem for radio astronomers (GEO obscures portion of
sky always) optical reflections from satellites and LEO stations WiII change the night sky
Problem for optical astronomy, optical reflections and interference from beam; change
night sky in vicin of sites
Microwave bioeffects midbeam could cause thermal heating unknown effects of longterm exposure to low-level microwaves, Ecosystem alteration? Birds avoid/attracted
to beam?
Psychological and physiological effects of 24hour illumination not known Possible ocular
hazard if viewed with binoculars? Ecosystem
alteration
Vulnerability
International
LEO more accessible to U.S.S.R. and high-lahtude countries, smaller parcels of energy make
Will require radio frequency allocation and orbit assignment
Smaller parcels of energy make system more system more fiexible
flexible
Meet environmental and health standards?
asmaller saLAREs systems, e g 10 GW/sde would be possible and probably more desirable
b$loz bllllonNASA estimatemcludes Investment costs
cEst(mates by Argonne National Laboratory, Office of Technology Assessment, U S Con9ress
SOURCE Offlceof Technology Assessment
Less ground sites; a lot of mirrors-redundancy; individual mirrors fragile; ground sites
still produce power in absence of space
system
century provided C0 2 buildup does not preclude increased coal use. At high demand
levels, however, it is unlikely that any one
technology could provide all the needed baseIoad capacity and several possibilities would
be needed. In this case, development of SPS
may be attractive, even assuming successful
development of fusion or breeder reactors.
An emerging factor that will strongly affect
electricity demand is the success in developing
demand technologies that use electricity very
efficiently. It is likely over the next several
decades that the price of electricity will come
close enough to other forms of energy (synthetic fuels, direct solar, etc.) that the relative
efficiencies of the end-use equipment will determine which energy form is the cheapest.
Therefore, electricity demand could grow considerably if such things as very efficient space
and water heat pumps, electrochemical industrial processes, and high-capacity storage batteries are developed. If these are not forthcoming and the conventional ways of using energydirect combustion of liquid and gaseous
fuelscontinue to be most prevalent, then
electricity demand in the United States wilI not
increase rapidly if at al 1. Therefore, the eventual need for solar power satellites and other
central electric technologies would be determined as much by the development of efficient electric demand technologies as by its
economics relative to other electric energy
technologies.
Comparison to Other
Renewable Options
Ultimately the United States and the world
will choose or reject SPS as an energy supply
option on the basis of comparative costs as
well as environmental and social impacts. OTA
has generated a number of criteria for the
choice of energy technologies and compared
SPS with other renewable or inexhaustible options (fusion, nuclear breeder, terrestrial solar
thermal, and solar photovoltaic) on the basis
of those criteria (see table 16, p. 11 6). What
emerges from such comparisons is that if the
research, development, demonstration, and
testing (RDD&T) costs and the estimated cost
per installed kilowatt can be lowered significantly, SPS could compete with the alternatives on an economic basis. SOLARES, for
instance, might already be economical compared to conventional nuclear. SPS technical
uncertainties are much higher than for the
breeder, but lower than for fusion. Social costs
are extremely difficult to determine, but if
research demonstrated the microwave and
Ionizing radiation hazards to be low, SPS couId
substitute low-risk environmental hazards for
the high risks of coal or nuclear as well as contribute to an expanded space program. It
wouId take longer to commercialize than terrestrial solar or breeder, but less than fusion. I n
competition with other technologies, overall
demand for electricity, and the timing of the
commercial introduction of SPS vis-a-vis other
options wilI be crucial.
UTILITIES
Would SPS be acceptable to the utilities?*
The major factors that would affect the utilities decision about SPS technology are cost,
reliability, unfamiliarity with space systems,
and institutional questions. Only demonstration, and successful experience with an operational SPS over several years, would assure the
utilities that it is a viable technology for their
use. If the microwave systems were as reliable
*See ch 9, The Irnpl;cat;ons for the Utility /ndustry section
able even in the future. Although nuclear, fusion, or coal energy parks having about 5,000
MW total capacity have been proposed, they
would be composed of several smaller units,
each of which are only about 1,000-MW capacity. In addition, in planning for overall system
reliability, utilities generally use the criterion
that no single unit in the system can account
for more than 10 to 15 percent of the total
system. Thus, in order to place a 5,000-MW
unit in the grid, the grid should have a total
system capacity of 33,000 to 50,000 MW. At
current rates of electrical growth (3.2 percent
per year), only the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA), the countrys largest utility, will have a
grid large enough to accommodate a 5,000MW SPS in 2000. TVA currently has a capacity
of 23,000 MW, but it has stopped construction
on several new powerplants because of slower
demand growth. A national power grid might
alleviate the problem of utility grids being too
small to accommodate a 5,000-MW SPS.
Laser Transmission. From the utilities perspective, the most serious difficulty facing
laser transmission is absorption by clouds.
Although in a few locations in the country it
appears to be technically possible to switch
from a cloud covered area to one that is cloudfree, utilities would have little incentive to
construct the extra facilities to accommodate
such switching unless the economic benefits
were commensurate with the expense of the
extra facilities. In general, the various sites are
unlikely to be all in the same service area, further complicating the ability of the utility to
follow the load.
Mirror Reflection.
Reflection of sunlight from space suffers
from the same disadvantage as that of the
laser option: the reflected beam could
easily be degraded or occluded by cloud
cover. it has been suggested that the additional radiant energy might be enough to
dissipate clouds, but this might have
detrimental environmental effects and
alter weather patterns over a wide region
around the energy park.
As conceived in the baseline case, the
mirror system would require large energy
35
Nontechnical Considerations
In addition to the technical difficulties that
SPS can be expected to face, there are a
number of potential institutional barriers to
SPS acceptance by U.S. utilities:
37
the ability of an SPS organization to attract foreign capital and to involve foreign participants at early stages of development. (See International Implications.)
INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
What are the international implications of
solar power satellites?*
Development and construction of an SPS
system would necessarily involve a number of
international dimensions. At a minimum, current and future international treaties and
agreements, especially those dealing with the
allocation of the electromagnetic spectrum,
would require consultation with foreign states
and multinational organizations. Beyond this,
there may be good reasons to consider an active multilateral regime to regulate, build,
and/or operate the SPS.
International organizations, multinational
corporations, and domestic interest groups will
all be involved in SPS decisions. However, due
to the SPSs cost, benefits, and military/foreign
policy impacts, which would directly affect
the vital national interests of other nations involved, such decisions will ultimately be made
at the national level by political leaders.
Economic lmpact. If successful, the SPS
promises to deliver significant amounts of
electricity y. Estimates of future global electricity demand by the International Institute
for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) indicate
that, even with low rates of economic growth,
electricity usage will increase by a factor of 4
over the next 50 years. Regional variations in
growth rates will be considerable, with
developed countries increasing at a much
slower rate than developing ones. Recent
studies for the United States that take into account marked reductions in usage rates, such
as the National Academy of Sciences Energy
in Transition 1985-2010 indicate that demand
in the developed countries may remain con*See ch. 7.
development may be difficult or politically impossible; the precedent set by the uncompleted Law of the Sea negotiations should be
carefulIy considered.
Military Impact. The military uses of an SPS,
especially for directed-energy weaponry,
would be restricted by the 1972 Anti-Ballistic
Missile (ABM) Treaty and by provisions in the
1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of
Outer Space banning weapons of mass
destruction in orbit. Although SPS would not
lend itself to efficient use as a weaponssystem, * objections to the SPS on military
grounds, and demands for inspection and/or
redesign to preclude military uses, can be expected. Multilateral development would alleviate many such problems.
Foreign Interests.To date, space agencies
and private firms in foreign countries such as
England, France, West Germany, and Japan,
along with ESA, have expressed interest in SPS.
Most foreign studies have focused on regional
applications; technical and operational studies
have been done almost exclusively in the
United States. Soviet interest has been expressed for several years, with several technical papers published, but no details are
known. Third World interest has been informal
and cautiously favorable. Future discussion at
the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and other international bodies will be forthcoming. Any further
U.S.-sponsored study of SPSs must take into
account international participation in SPS
development, and demand for SPS power, in
order to evaluate properly the feasibility of
SPS programs.
.
See ch 7, Military Uses of SPS section
39
The use of nuclear weapons outside of a major nuclear exchange would carry great dangers of escalation. Any attack, nuclear or conventional, would depend on perceptions of
whether SPS is considered part of national territory and how leaders would react to such a
provocation. The analogy to ships on the high
sea suggests that an SPS in orbit might be considered fair game even short of full-scale war.
Attacks on SPS would also be affected by
whether the SPS was manned; destroying an
unmanned craft might be undertaken as a relatively unprovocative demonstration of will. At
present, neither the United States nor the
U.S.S.R. has the ability to attack objects in
geosynchronous orbit, but both are working on
various antisatellite devices and there appear
to be no insurmountable obstacles to their
development.
Defense of space craft is possible through:
1) maneuverability, 2) hardening, and 3) antimissile defenses.
The SPS would be too large and fragile to
evade attack. Hardening against explosives or
EMP bursts would add significantly to weight
and costs, and could not be effective against a
determined attack. Stationing missile or satellite defenses on a geostationary SPS, whether
directed-energy weapons or antimissile missiles, would be feasible due to the power
generated by the SPS and its position at the top
of a 35,800-km gravity well. However, such
weapons would have unavoidable offensive
capabilities and would therefore invite attack.
Defense of civilian SPSs could probably be
best done by independent military forces, on
the ground or in space, rather than by turning
the SPS itself into a space-fortress.
Receiving antennas or (for the mirrorsystem) PV parks would make unattractive
targets due to their large size and redundancy;
they would certainly be no more vulnerable
than other generating facilities. It should be
noted that the SOLARES system could continue to produce power, albeit at approximately one-fifth rated capacity, by operating on
ambient sunlight even if the space mirror
system were destroyed.
41
PUBLIC ISSUES
The SPS debate: what are the issues arising in
the public arena?*
While public awareness of SPS is growing,
most discussion has been confined to a small
number of public interest groups and professional societies. In general, many of the individuals and groups who support the development of SPS also advocate a vigorous space
program. The L-5 Society has been a particularly vocal SPS supporter and views the
satelIite system as an important stepping-stone
in the colonization of space, a goal to which
the society is dedicated. The SUNSAT Energy
Council, a group formed to promote interest in
SPS, believes that it is one of the most promising options available for meeting future global
energy and resource needs. Professional associations such as the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (1 E E E), have supported continued research and evaluation of the concept.
Many opponents of SPS are concerned that
it wouId drain resources from the development
of terrestrial solar technologies. The Solar Lobby and other public interest groups argue that
compared to these ground-based solar options,
SPS is inordinately large, expensive, and comSee ch 9, Issues Arising in the Public Arena section
83-316 0 - 81 - 4
effects which are poorly understood at present. The resolution of the uncertainties
associated with these effects is critical to the
assessment of the environmental acceptability
of SPS. More research is needed to understand
and quantify these impacts and to investigate
modified system designs that would minimize
environmental risks. At present, there are three
major areas of concern.
1. Bioeffects of Electromagnetic Radiation.
The effects of exposure to SPS power transmission and high-voltage transmission lines
R&D funding
. SPS is a promising energy option
. The Nation should keep as many energy options open as
possible
An SPS R&D program is the only means of evaluating the merit
of SPS relative to other energy technologies
SPS R&D will yield spinoffs to other programs
cost
SPS is likely to be cost competitive in the energy market
. Cost to taxpayer is for R&D onIy and accounts for smalI portion
of total cost; private sector and/or other nations will invest in production and maintenance
. SPS will produce economic spinoffs
Space
Military implications
The vulnerability of SPS is comparable to other energy systems
SPS has poor weapons potential
As a civilian program, SPS would create little military spinoffs
Spinoffs to the military from R&D and hardware would be significant and undesirable
Vulnerability and weapons potential are of concern
43
potential
interference
Occupational health
and safety
Environmental impact
b Effects of Iow-level
with
satellite communications,
terrestrial communications,
radar, radio, and optical
astronomy.
Lasers
Ocular hazard?
Psychological effects of
laser as weapon are
possible.
Adverse aesthetic effects
on appearance of night
sky are possible.
Mirrors
bTropospheric heating
could modify weather.
Ecosystem: effect of 24hr Iight on growing.
cycles of plants and circadian rhythms of animals.
b potential interference
wit h optical astronomy.
Ocular hazard?
Psychological effect of
24-hr sunlight.
A d v e r s e esthetic e f f e c t s
on appearance of night
sky are possible.
Ocular hazard?
hazards:
ionizing radiation
(potentially severe)
weightlessness, life
support failure, long
stay in space,
construction accidents
psychological stress,
acceleration.
Terrestrial workers
hazards: noise, transportation accidents.
Transportation and
space operation
Launch and recovery
HLLV
PLV
COTV
POTV
Space workers
44
Occupational health
and safety
Environmental impact
bEmission of water vapor
could alter natural
hydrogen cycle; extent and
implications are not wellknown.
b
Effect of COTV argon ions
on magnetosphere and
plasma-sphere could be
great but unknown.
Depletion of ozone layer
by effluents expected to
be minor but uncertain.
Noise.
Terrestrial activities
Mining
Land disturbance
(stripmining, etc.).
Measurable increase of
air and water pollution.
Solid waste generation.
Strain on production
capacity of gallium
arsenide, sapphire, silicon,
graphite fiber, tungsten,
and mercury.
Manufacturing
Measurable increase of
air and water pollution.
Solid wastes.
Measurable increase of
air and water pollution.
Solid wastes.
Exposure to toxic
materials.
Construction
Measurable Iand
disturbance.
Measurable local increase
of air and water pollution.
Measurable land
disturbance.
Measurable local increase
of air and water pollution.
Noise.
Measurable local
increase of air and water
pollution.
Accidents.
Receiving antenna
Land
Exposure to
High-voltage
transmission lines
(not unique to SPS)
usereduced
Waste heat.
almpacts based on SPS systems as currently defined ancl do not account for offshore receivers or poss!ble miti9atin9 sYstem modifications.
bResearch priority.
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
45
exposure limits. Research is needed to determine more precisely the expected dose rates,
the types and energies of ionizing particles,
and the effectiveness rate of various types and
thicknesses of shielding. The results will determine the number of spaceworkers, the duration of the stay, the mass needed in orbit (for
shielding), and space suit and system designs.
All of these impacts may strongly affect SPS
costs and feasibility.
For SPS systems other than the microwave
designs, very little assessment of the health
and safety effects has been conducted. The
power density of a focused laser system beam
could be sufficiently great to incinerate some
biological matter. Outside the beam, scattered
laser light could constitute an ocular and skin
hazard. More study would be needed to quantify risks, define possible safety measures and
explore the effects of long-term exposure to
low-level laser light.
The light delivered to Earth by the mirror
system, even in combination with the ambient
daylight, would never exceed that in the desert
at high noon. The health impacts that might be
adverse include psychological and physiological effects of 24 hour per day sunlight and
possible ocular damage from viewing the mirrors, expecialIy through binoculars.
2. Effects on the Upper Atmosphere. Atmospheric effects result from two sources: heating
by the power transmission beam and the emission of launch vehicle effluents. While the
most significant effect of the laser and mirror
systems is probably weather modification due
to tropospheric heating, ionospheric heating is
most important for the microwave systems
operating at 2.45 GHz. Of most concern is
disruption of telecommunications and surveillance systems from perturbations of the ionosphere. Experiments indicate that the effects
on telecommunications of heating the lower
ionosphere are negligible for the systems
tested. As a result, a few researchers have suggested that microwave power densities of up
to 40 to 50 mW/cm2, or two times the level
assumed for the reference design, could be
used before significant heating would occur.
46
47
k m2 /site
174
50
0
40
1,000
100
km2/1,OOOMW
35.0
33.0
1.2
80.0
60
180
600
600
-29
30
9.6
10,400
9,000
360
24,000
2,200
2,880
m2/MW-yr
1,233 b
1,163 b
42-51e
2,819-3,382 e
261-313 e
338-406 e
174.0
950.0
518.0
e(lipitical area, Mi~r~~ave power
density at edge of rectenna is 1.(J mw/cm2, If an exclusion boundary is set at 0.1 mW/Cm ,
2
then the total land per site is approximately 174 km . J. B. Blackburn, Sate//ire Power System
HCP/R-4024-10, October 1978 does not include land for mining or fuel transport.
bThe values for the reference and solid-state designs assume a 30-year lifetime and a caPacitY
cThe solid-state sandwich design is described in G. M. Hanley et al., Satellite Power Systems
ternational Report No. SSD79-0163, NASA MSFC Contract NAS8-32475, October 10, 1979.
dLaser 1 and Laser II are two laser systems considered by DOE Both deliver the same amount of
2
rllore
intenSe)
than that of Laser Il. See C. Bain, Potential of Laser for SPS Power Transmission, October 1978, Department of Energy, HCPIR-4024-07.
eThe values for the laser and mirror systems assume a 30-year lifetime and CapaCitY factors of 0.75-0.9.
fMirror I system parameters are defined by SOLARES baseline system and Mirror II system for low (1 ,100 km) orbit
gThe SOLARES baseline system is designed to deliver 81O GW to 6 sites; 2 SOLARES basellne sites actually provide 270 GW.
ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
How would SPS affect other users of the
electromagnetic spectrum?*
Whether SPS were to be eventually deployed as a microwave, laser, or mirror system,
it would affect some portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Other users of the spectrum would be concerned about the nature of
potential detrimental effects, whether they are
amenable to amelioration and, if so, what the
costs would be. A microwave system would be
the most problematic because communications of all sorts share this general portion of
the spectrum. In addition, a wide range of
other electronic devices (e. g., sensors, computers) are susceptible to microwave interference.
The Public
Deploying SPS would markedly change the
visual appearance of the night sky. A set of
reference system satellites equally spaced
along the Equator would appear as a set of
bright stationary stars whose total effect for
observers on longitudes near the middle of the
set and for all latitudes along these longitude
lines would equal the Moon at about quarter
phase. Nonstationary satellites such as an LEO
deployed laser or mirror system would create
the effect of bright moving stars. The effect
of such satelIites on the night sky has not been
calculated. However, it could be expected to
equal the overall effect of the 60-satellite set
of reference satelIites.
Some observers might well enjoy the sight of
manmade stars added to the night sky.
Many, especially those in countries who failed
to benefit from the generated power, might
strongly resent the intrusion on the celestial
landscape.
Space Communications
All artificial Earth satellites use some portion of the electromagnetic spectrum for comSee ch. 8
nature of the interference. Additional information is essential to calculate the minimum re-
1985
1970
1975
1980
1985
Year
SOURCE: W. L. Morgan, Comsat Technical Review, 10 vol. 1,1980.
49
1980
1990
40
20
200
40
60
51
80
Declination
Note: This figure shows the predicted brightness of the sky as a result of a
60-satellite SPS system along the meridian at local midnight for Kitt Peak
National Observatory at the vernal equinox. The calculation of this profile
is based on an assumed 4 percent diffuse albedo
SOURCE: Workshop on SPS Effects on Optical and Radio Astronomy,
DOE/Conf 7905143, P. A. Ekstron and G M Stokes (eds.).
SPACE PROGRAM
How would development of the SPS affect
our civilian space program?*
If pursued, an SPS program would be the
largest and most ambitious space program
ever undertaken. SPS development could provide: 1 ) new capabilities for future space ventures; 2) spinoffs for civilian and military use,
in space as well as other areas; 3) a political
and programmatic focus for the civilian space
program; and 4) potential furtherance of U.S.
domestic and foreign policy goals.
An SPS program would require the development of a high-capacity space transportation
system, the construction of large space structures, and perhaps the deployment of manned
space bases. I n addition, an extensive industrial infrastructure would be needed to support
these activities. The hardware, knowledge, and
facilities generated by such a program would
significantly increase our overall space capabilities and lay the groundwork for future industrialization, mining and, perhaps, the colonization of space.
Direct technological spinoffs can be expected in the development of improved large
space platforms, energy transmission devices,
ground illuminating systems, high-efficiency
solar celIs, and Iife-support systems.
Conversely, SPS development will benefit
from prior developments in space technology,
most notably in space transportation and
systems for automated construction of space
structures.
An important consideration is the extent to
which an SPS program wouId serve as the
focus and driving-force for the space program
as a whole. In the 1960s, the U.S. civilian effort was centered on Apollo; in the 1970s on
the Space Shuttle. However, in 1978, the Carter
administration stated that: it is neither feasible nor necessary at this time to commit the
United States to a high-challenge space engineering initiative comparable to Apollo. In
the absence of a long-term goal such as SPS,
some have predicted that future space efforts
wouId lag, or become overwhelmingly military
in nature. On the other hand, there is concern
that an SPS commitment would draw resources from or otherwise interfere with other
space activities, leading to an unbalanced effort. In addition, for SPS as well as other less
expensive programs, the annual appropriations
procedure for NASA often results in budgetary
and programmatic uncertainty; development
of SPS would require long-term financial planning and long-term commitment to the project.
In addition to its use as a source of electrical
power, the SPS should be judged by whether it
is in accord with national interests as reflected
in national space policy. The NASA Act of
1958 (as amended), states that space activities
should be for peaceful purposes, and can be
undertaken in cooperation with other countries, to further the general welfare and
security of the United States. In 1978 the
Carter administration, in its October Fact
Sheet on U.S. Civil Space Policy, reaffirmed
these goals while emphasizing the practical
and commercial benefits of the civil space program. A civilian-run SPS program open to international participation would further current
space policy goals.
Involvement by NASA in SPS operation
might require a change of NASAs current
charter, which restricts the direct operation of
commercial ventures. Currently, DOE has
prime responsibility for solar energy research,
while NASA is responsible for the U.S. civilian
space program. An SPS program would require
extensive cooperation between the two agencies; if this caused difficulties, a separate
agency or some other organizational alternative might prove preferable.
Chapter 4
POLICY OPTIONS
Chapter 4
POLICY OPTIONS
Because the solar power satellite (SPS) is a
new energy concept, much of this assessment
has Ied across previously uncharted territory.
SPS has potential for supplying a portion of
U.S. electrical needs, but current knowledge
about SPS, whether technical, environmental,
or sociopolitical is still too tentative or uncertain to decide whether SPS would be a wise investment of the Nations resources. Further
research and study, based on the findings of
this and other assessments, 2 would be needed
in order to formulate such a decision properly.
The kind and pace of a research program, if
one is to be conducted, will be determined by
perceptions of when development decisions
need to be made.
Decisions about SPS development involve
an important tradeoff. I n time, more can be
learned about the context within which SPS
would operate. Furthermore, in view of this
studys analysis of future U.S. electricity demand and the availability of alternate energy
sources (see ch. 6), domestic need is not likely
to be high enough for SPS before 2015-25.
Therefore, development and deployment decisions do not have to be made before the
1990s. However, action should be taken in a
timely manner. Since the development of a
major energy and space system may take more
than 20 years, a decision about whether to
develop SPS will probably need to be made
before the end of the century. The development of SPS may need to be started as early as
1990, if high-growth projections for electricity
seem plausible at the time. If an SPS development program is eventually initiated, the Nation must also decide whether it wishes to pursue SPS as a unilateral or as an international
venture. The tasks before the United States in
this decade are to determine how much and
what kinds of information are needed in order
to make a sound decision sometime in the next
Program Assessment Report Statement of Findings, SPS C o n cept Development and Evaluation Program, DO E/E R-0085,
November 1980.
National Research Council Report of the Committee on Satellite Power Systems, June 1981
56
Demonstration
......
Systems
engineering,
space testing
Research,
component
testing
CDEP
No program
DP 2
DP 1
DP 1
DP 3
DP 2
No program No program
Research Research
. Initiate development
DP
3
No program
Research
Continue systems
engineering
Demonstration
DP
DP 4
Time
4
No SPS
Research
Systems
engineering
New demonstration
Deployment
57
Public opinion issues Public perceptions and public involvement are important components of any publicly
funded program. Dissemination of information and sharing of research
results would be essential to the SPS
program, even in the research phase. It
would also be important to continue to
solicit responses from segments of the
public that would be especially affected, either positively or negatively,
by SPS development.
3.Technical factors specific to SPS. Knowledge about these factors can be gathered
or generated by deliberate effort. Answers
to specific questions in this group will
have an immediate effect on SPS development decisions. The kind, quantity, and
quality of the information as well as the
time at which it can be available are partly dependent on the level of funding. Four
general categories of this sort of information are evident:
Environment and human health:
microwave and laser bioeffects,
high energy particle and ionizing radiation effects on humans in space,
ionospheric effects due to microwave transmission,
land-use impacts,
offshore rectenna environmental effects,
launch vehicle exhaust effects on atmosphere, and
weather modification from mirror
systems.
General system studies:
alternate systems (identify which
areas need further research, and possible testing of components),
component and system costs, and
comparison of alternate systems.
Component testing and evacuation:
Klystrons/magnetrons/solid-state devices,
high-powered, continuous-wave lasers (EDL, solar pumped, FE L),
SIip ring designs,
deployable, large-area, lightweight
space structures,
59
since they are the most important in determining the feasibility of SPS. However, they could
also take the longest to resolve. Some component testing and studies of alternative systems
could receive high priority. The amount of
funding which would be made available would
depend on an evaluation of previous research
findings and the state of projected supply and
demand for electricity in the 21st century.
It may be prudent to start at a low level of
funding and later accelerate research that is
specific to SPS as well as make greater funding
available for SPS related generic studies.
Another possibility is to actively solicit funding for projects of joint international-U. S. interest, perhaps by offering to match foreign
funding for research projects undertaken outside the United States, but which are of interest to U.S. planners. An accelerated research program ($30 million per year) could include some component testing in space as welI
as at the Earths surface. It could also include
at least one shuttle mission (post 1985) and
some space-related experiments on other shuttle flights. It would seek to answer the major
environmental and health and safety questions
before 1990 and also conduct extensive systems studies. If these concerns are seen to pose
no impediments, accelerated funding would
provide the quickest way of entering a development phase.
Making funds available for SPS-specific research should ensure that enough information
is eventually available in order to make a rational development decision. This approach
also has the advantage that it could provide
for extensive international cooperation early
in the research phase before seeking more extensive financial and managerial cooperation
in any subsequent development or construction phase. This would spread the decision to
proceed or drop SPS development to other
countries as well.
However, a higher level of spending ($30
million or so per year), here and abroad, would
make it more likely that an entrenched SPS
constituency would form, giving the program
momentum and making it harder to stop; more
information may not make a program easier to
terminate. Under such conditions, our understanding of SPS technology may outstrip our
knowledge of future electricity demand. It is
also possible that support for a given mode of
$10 million
SPS-dedicated projects
Estimated
costs
Ionospheric studies
Atmospheric studies
$2 million
Ionizing radiation
Space
Electromagnetic
interference
$0.3 million to
$5 million
$0.5 million
61
Ionospheric equivalent
$10 million
heating. Upgrade Arecibo
facility. Study SPS
equivalent heating in
upper atmosphere. Test
scaling laws and effects
on representative telecommunication systems.
Experiments to test
$1 million
effects of SPS
effluents on magnetosphere and to
increase understanding of
that region.
Quantify and study SPS
effects on the hydrogen
cycle, and formation of
noctilucent clouds.
Study effect on local
climate of SOLARES-type
system using an array of
ground heaters or a solar
pond.
*Studies of possible
weather modification,
beam scattering
and spreading.
Identify transportation
scenarios that
minimize impacts.
$2 million to
$3 million
$0.2 million
programs examining the risks
and protection measures for
humans in space.
Study potential electromag$2 million
netic interference and design
mitigating techniques. Improve
theory of phased array.
$1 million
Investigate antenna
patterns of klystron,
magnetron, solidstate devices (see below),
their noise levels, and
out-of-band harmonics.
Research/study area
Estimated
cost
Environmental
impacts of
receiver siting
General system studies
Laser system
Mirror system
Alternative microwave
Develop a reference
laser system
*Develop a reference
mirror system
*Develop alternative
microwave systems
*Perform a true comparative study between SPS
alternatives using common technology and cost
basis.
Lasers
. Mechanical
components
Estimated
costs
SPS-dedicated projects
Mirror
Research priority.
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
$3 million to
$6 million
$2 million
$0.5 million to
$1 million
$0.5 million to
$1 million
$1 million
Develop solid-state
$2 million to
phased array
$10 million
Study alternative micro- $.3 million to
wave devices, such as
$1 million
photoklystron
$1 million
$2 million
$3million to
$10 million
Adapt optimum
photovoltaics for SPS,
i.e., low mass, high
efficiency, radiation
resistant
Build solar pumped
lasers
Laser optics
$2 million
$1 million to
$3 million
$0.1
(feasibility studies)
$0.3
Study means of
$0.3
constructing slip ring
and rotating joint
*SOLARES mirror materials
structures
Develop prototype mirror $0.5
design for shuttle launch
of a single SOLARES
mirror
million to
million
million
million
Chapter 5
Contents
Page
Microwave Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
The Reference System.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Laser Transmission.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Laser Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Laser Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Laser-Power Conversion at Earth . . . . . . 82
The Laser-Based System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Mirror Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
The Mirror System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Space Transportation and Construction
Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . 89
Space Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
SPA Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Reference System Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Alternative Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Solid-StateSystem . . . . . . . . . . .
The Laser System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Mirror System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
96
96
96
97
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Page
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
Page
Chapter 5
MICROWAVE TRANSMISSION
Because the atmosphere is highly transparent to microwaves, they constitute an obvious
candidate for the SPS transmission mode. In
addition, microwave technology also is wellknown and is used today in a number of space
and terrestrial communications and radar applications. Microwave power transmission was
first demonstrated experimentally in 1964,
and tested in 1974.2 3
4 56
65
SOURCE: C. C. Kraft, The Solar Power Satellite Concept, NASA publication No. JSC-14898, July 1979
11.58 GW
10.50 GW
9.46 GW
10.79 GW
10.29 GW
9.79 GW
Ga
Ga
71.77 GW
(Solar)
63.18 GW
70.81 GW
Si
62.34 GW
Ga
Si
9.08 GW
8.50 GW
8.50 GW
8.18 GW
6.58 GW
5.79 GW
5.15 GW
6.96 GW
6.72 GW
Si
9.08 GW
cells: low mass per unit area, resistance to thermal and radiation degradation, and higher efficiency. They have the disadvantages of relatively high cost, the limited production availability of gallium, and a smaller technology
base than for silicon cells. Because of these
latter characteristics, these cells would be
used in a 2:1 concentration ratio in the reference system, trading the relatively expensive
cells for less expensive Iightweight reflectors
to concentrate sunlight on the cells.
The structure that supports the solar cells
would be an open-truss framework made of
graphite-fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite (fig. 9). Because the solar array must be
oriented toward the Sun and the transmitting
antenna toward the Earth, a massive rotary
joint is essential in order to provide the necessary mechanical coupling. Sliprings about
400 m in diameter would be used in conjunc-
COTV
construction
depot
Space
freighter
SOURCE: R. O. Piland,
Review, DOE/NASA
Cost Methodology and Sensitivities, The Final Proceedings of the Solar Power Satellite Program
1980.
70
USA standard
10
5
1.0
10
10
10
0.01
4,000
2,000
8,000
6,000
0.005
I
o
I
1,000
I
2,000
1
3,000
I
4,000
5,000
0.001
0
5,000 1 0 , 0 0 0
15,000
20,000
Ground radius, m
Grating lobe spikes occur every 245 km for the 18-m subarrays used on simulations although only two grating lobes
are shown. The SPS 10-m subarrays have grating lobes
every 440 km.
SOURCE: Department of Energy, Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program: Reference System Report, DOE
report No. DOE/ER-0023, October 1978.
SOURCE: Department of Energy, Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program: Reference System Report, DOE
report No. DOE/ER-0023, October 1978.
The designs of these four vehicles, called respectively, the heavy-lift launch vehicle
(HLLV), the personnel launch vehicle (PLV), the
cargo orbital transfer vehicle (COTV), and the
personnel orbital transfer vehicle (POTV), are
based on existing technology, although all
would require considerable development before reaching operational status. 13 14 15 16
Both the HLLV and the PLV would utilize
fully reusable flyback boosters similar to those
originally considered by NASA in early shuttle
designs in the late 1960s. Both boosters would
employ methane-oxygen rocket engines for
(vertical) takeoff and airbreathing (turbofan)
engines for flyback to base for horizontal landings. The HLLV orbiter would use oxygenRobert Salkeld, Donald W Patterson, and Jerry Grey (eds ),
Space Transportation Systems, 1980-2000, VOI 2, AlAA Aeroipace Assessment Series, A IAA, New York, 1978
G Woodcock, Solar Power Satellite System Definition
Study, Boeing Aerospace Co., Johnson Space Center contract
No NAS9-I 5196, pt 1, report No D180-20689, June 1977; pt 11,
report No D180-22876, December 1977, pt I I 1, report No
D180-24071, March 1978
C Hanley, Satellite Power System (SPS) Concept Definition, Rockwell International Corp., Marshall Space Flight Center, contract No NAS8-32475, report No SD78-AP-0023, April
1 378
15
Gordon R Woodcock, Future Space Transportation Systems Analysis Study, Johnson Space Center contract No.
NAS9-I 4323, Boeing Aerospace Co. report No DI 80-20242-1
(three volumes), Dec. 31,1976
Donald P, Hearth (Study Director), A Forecast of Space
Technology 1980-2000, NASA SP-387, January 1976.
SYSTEM OPERATION
An active control system would be needed
both to keep the satellite in the proper orbit
Denls j Powell and Lee Brewing, Automated Fabrication of
Large Space Structures, Astronautics and Aeronautics, October
1978, pp 24-29
8 Antal K Bejczy, Advanced Teleoperators, Astronautics
and Aeronautics, May 1979, pp. 20-31
W H Wales, SPS Program Review Transportation Perspective, I n The Final Proceedings of the Solar Power Satellite Program /?ev/ew, DOE/NASA Conf-800491, July 1980
O Feaslbil ity Study for Various Approaches to the Structural
Design and Arrangement of the Ground Rectenna for the Proposed Satellite, NASA contract No. NAS-I 5280, Bovay Engineers, In{ , M a y 1 9 7 7
SOURCE: W. H. Wales, SPS Program Review Transportation Perspective, in The Final Proceedings of the Solar Power Satellite Proqram Review, D O E / N A S A
Conf-800491, July 1980.
74
plished by gyroscopes, which would feed control signals to the mechanical-joint turntable
so that it could follow the antenna pointing requirements. However, mechanical pointing of
the antenna would not have to be performed
with high accuracy, since the electronic phasing and pointing of the antenna subarrays
would be insensitive to angular deflections of
the antenna of upto100.
In addition to the equipment for satellite
station keeping and attitude control, it would
be necessary to provide routine maintenance
of both the space and ground segments. Potential maintenance problems in the space segment, in addition to the expected routine replacement of components, include the effects
of solar wind, cosmic rays, micrometeoroids,
and impacts by station-generated debris. Aside
from the solar wind and cosmic radiation effects on solar cells, which would require active
annealing of the silicon cells, none of these effects would appear to introduce significant
maintenance problems or costs, based on extensive past and current experience with operational satellites powered by photovoltaic
celIs.
Repair and replacement of the solar blankets and more than 100,000 70-kW klystrons in
the transmitting antenna are estimated to require a crew of from 5 to 20 people at the
geostationary orbit construction base,21 along
with the necessary transportation, support,
and resupply (e. g., station-keeping propellant)
services.
Maintenance requirements of the rectenna
and substation are also primarily associated
with repair and replacement of their biIIions of
components. Although a certain degree of redundancy is built into the system, a maintenance crew would still be required to replace
storm-damaged rectenna sections and routine
failures of both rectenna and substation equipment.
Technical Uncertainties of
the Reference System
Although most observers accept the basic
scientific feasibility of the SPS system con2
DOE, op cit
75
Silicon cells are subject to serious degradation by high energy electrons and protons in the solar wind released by solar
flares. One study estimates that the accumulated particle damage would degrade the output from the cells by 30percent during the 30-year nominal life of
the satellite. The resulting damage could
be repaired periodically by annealing the
cells by either a laser or an electron beam.
The beam would sweep across the surface
of the cells and heat them briefly to several hundred degrees centigrade. Very little is known about either process in the
laboratory and nothing at ail about how
they would work in space or how much
energy they would use to anneal the surface of the photovoltaic cells. However,
experiments have shown that annealing
by electron beam is much more efficient
than laser annealing.23 Because no longterm studies have been done, the suitability of silicon cells for extended duration space applications is in question;
however, they have demonstrated excellent performance over a period of
about 10 years in operating spacecraft.
GaAs cells appear to be a more realistic
candidate for a reference-type satellite,
though they have received much less attention than the silicon cells. GaAs cells
reach higher efficiencies and can operate
at higher ambient temperatures than silicon cells. Laboratory models of GaAs
cells have reached efficiencies as high as
18 percent. 24 Because of their currently
higher unit cost, the GaAs array would
probably require refIectors to concentrate
the Suns rays on the cells and thereby
reduce the required cell area. Aluminized
Kapton has been suggested as a reflective
material because of its low thermal coefficient of expansion and low mass density.
2
*C R Woodcock, SPS Silicon Reference System, The Fina/
P r o c e e d i n g s of the Solar Power Sate//ite Program Review,
DOE/NASA Conf-800491, July 1980,
B E. Anspaugh, J. A Scott-Monck, R. G. Downing, D W.
Moffett, and T. F Miyahira, Effects of Electrons & Protons on
Ultra Thin Silicon Solar Cells, J PL contract No, NAS7-1OO.
lbld
78
Sunlight
Reflected sunlight
Detail of solar cell
blanket panel
Solid-state
amplifier
panel
Microwave
power to
Earth
Performance
Review,
Rockwell
International
report
LASER TRANSMISSION
Lasers constitute an alternative to microwave transmitters for the transmission of
power over long distance.27 They offer the fundamental advantage that at infrared wavelengths, energy can be transmitted and received by apertures over a hundred times
smaller in diameter than the microwave beam.
This obviously would reduce the size and mass
of the space transmitter and the land-area requirement of the ground receiver. But perhaps
even more important, the great reduction in
aperture area would permit consideration of
fundamentally different systems. For example:
W H
power
Laser Generators
Although the laser has become a well-known
and widely utilized device in industry, the
high-power continuous-wave (CW) laser generators needed for SPS are still in the
advanced-technology or, in many cases, the
early research phase.28 However, the technology is improving dramatically as exemplified
by the growth of laboratory-demonstrated conversion efficiencies (input power to laser
28j Frank Coney bear, The Use of Lasers for the Transmission
of Power, in P r o g r e s s in Astronautics, vol. 61, A IAA, N Y ,
)ui~ 1978, pp. 279-310
79
Q SEP
Ps
solar
SOURCE: R. Taussig, P. Cassady, and R. Klosterman, Solar Driven Lasers for Power Satellite Applications, in Firra/ Pro
ceedings of SPS Program Review, Department of Energy, p. 267
SOURCE: R. Taussig, P. Cassady, and R. Klosterman, Solar Driven Lasers for Power Satellite Applications, in Final Proceedings of SPS Program Review, Department of Energy. p. 267
Jones, et al , op cit
Beverly, op. cit
Baln, op cit
40
Optics
m
SOURCE: Claud N. Bain, Potential of Laser for SPS Power Transmission, report No. R-l WI,
PRC Energy Analysis Co., DOE contract No. EG-77-C-01-4042, September 1978.
83
Current
Photovoltaics. . . . . . . . . . . .
Heat engines . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thermionics . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30% efficiency
megawatt power levels
wavelengths below 1 micron
Piston engine: Otto or diesel cycles
50% efficiency
1-10 k W
wavelengths near 10.6 microns
40% efficiency
1-10 kW
wavelengths near 10.6 microns
Photochemical cells . . . . . .
Optical diodes . . . . . . . . . . .
45% efficiency
megawatt power levels
wavelengths below 1 micron
Turbine
75% efficiency
megawatt power levels
wavelengths near 5 microns
50% efficiency
megawatt power levels
wavelengths near 5 or 10 microns
Photoassisted dissociation of water
30% efficiency
wavelengths near 0.6 microns
Evaporated junction arrays
50% efficiency
megawatt power levels
respond to wavelengths from UV to
over 10 microns
SOURCE: George Lee, Status and Summary of Laser Energy Conversion, in Progress in Astronautics, vol. 61, AlAA, N. Y., July 1978, pp. 549-565.
The specific 500 MW system selected is diagramed in figure 21; hardware details of the
power satellite appear in table 7, and the Over- .
all system characteristics are summarized in
table 8.
Ground site
SOURCE: W. S. Jones, L. L. Morgan, J. B.
and J.
Laser Power Conversion
Analysis: Final Report, Vol.
NASA report No. CR-159523, contract No.
137, Mar. 15, 1979.
Co., report No.
Occulted ,
Power
Collector
Solar cavity
85
85
86
73.1
Power in (MW). . . . . . . . .
7,913
Power out (MW). . . . . . . .
6,726
Orbital weight (kg) . . . . . 242,850
Space
transmission
Unit efficiency (%) . . . . .
95
System efficiency (%) . .
10.8
Power in (MW). , . . . . . . .
899
Power out (MW). . . . . . . .
854
Orbital weight (kg) . . . . .
6,726
5,784
517,750
Power
generation
and
conditioning
EE/binary
cycle
73.5
53.7
5,784
4,251
1,326,330
Space relay
Laser
93.1
50.0
4,251
3,958
717,660
Spacecraft,
structure,
radiators, etc.
23
11.5
3,958
910
1,809,000
128,653
Spacecraft 4,108
98.7
11.4
910
899
97,811
Telescope (2)
89,812
Structure 94,433 Beam reduction
5,379
Radiators 6,032
Phasing array
1,539
Stabilization
Optical train 1,181
24,080
Atmospheric
transmission
Ground
receiver
Thermal
cavity
85
9.1
845
718
96
8.7
718
690
98
8.5
690
676
99
10.7
854
845
105,438
Transmitter 44,703
Receiver 46,729
Optical train 945
Spacecraft 5,900
Radiators 5,762
Structure 1,023
Miscellaneous 376
Transmitter aperture
and optical train
Binary
cycle
75.5
6.5
676
510
Electrical
generation
98
6.3
510
500
SOURCE: W. S. Jones, L. L., Morgan, J.B. Forsyth, and J. Skratt, Laser Power Conversion System Analysis: Final Report, Vol. 11, Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.,
report No. LMSC-D673466, NASA report No CR-159523, contract No. NAS3-21 137, Mar 15, 1979.
Abraham Hertzberg and Chan-Veng Lau, A High-Temperature Ranklne Binary Cycle for Ground and Space Solar AppIications, m Radiation Energy Conversion in Space, K W,
Billman (cd,), P r o g r e s s in Astronautics and Aeronautics, vol. 61
(New York, AlAA, July 1978), pp 172-185.
86 .
Solar
Power
Satellites
MIRROR REFLECTION
Instead of placing the solar energy conversion system in orbit as in the reference SPS,
several authors have suggested using large orbiting mirrors to reflect sunlight on a 24-hour
basis to ground-based solar-conversion systems. 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0
Typically, this option would use plane mirrors (fig. 22) in various nonintersecting lowaltitude Earth orbits, each of which directs
sunlight to the collectors of several groundbased solar-electric powerplants as it passes
over them (the so-called SOL ARE S concept).
Each mirror would be composed of a thin
film reflecting material stretched across a supporting structure made up of graphite-reinforced thermoplastic. As they pass within
range of the terrestrial receiving station, the
mirrors would acquire the Sun and the ground
station nearly simultaneously. They would
maintain pointing accuracy by means of builtin reaction wheels.
Two typical limiting cases have been identified from among several alternatives. 51 one
wouId use a 1,196-km circular equatorial orbit
(O 0 latitude) serving 16 equatorial ground stations each generating about 13 CW (baseload,
with minimum storage) and another 6,384-km
40 -inclination circular orbit serving four 375
GW ground stations at 300 latitude. Additional
ground stations in each case (to accommodate
demand growth) could be achieved simply by
47
H e r m a n n Oberth, Wege zur Raumschiffahrt, OldenburgVerlag, Berlin, 1929; also see Ways to Spaceflight, NASA technical translation TT F-662
48
Krafft A Ehricke (for example), Cost Reductions in Energy
Supply Through Space Operations, paper IAF-A76-24, 27th lrrternationa/ Astrorraut;ca/ Congress, Anaheim, Calif , Oct. 10-16,
1976.
K, W. Billman, W, P Gilbreath, and S W Bowen, introductory Assessment of Orbiting Reflectors for Terrestrial Power Generation, NASA TMX-73,230, April 1977
K, W. Billman, W. P. Cilbreath, and S W Bowen, Orbiting
Mirrors for Terrestrial Energy Supply, in Radiation Energy Conversion in Space, K, W, Billman (ed ), Progress in Astronautics
and Aeronautics Series, VOI 61 (New York Al AA, July 1978), pp
61-80
K. W. Billman, W. P. Gil breath, and S W. Bowen, Solar
Energy Economics Revisited: The Promise and Challenge of Orbiting Reflector for World Energy Supply, DOE SPS Program
Review, June 8,1979.
2K W Billman, Space Orbiting Light Augmentation Reflector Energy System: A Look at Alternative Systems, SPS Program
Review, June 1979.
ghtweight Structures for Space
John M Hedgepeth, Ult[
Power, in Radiation Energy Conversion in SpaceJ K W, Billman (ed ), Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, vol. 61 (New
York Al AA, j uly 1978), pp. 126-135.
SOURCE:
They would require a large number of satellites each with individual attitude control. Maintenance might be expensive and
difficult to accomplish.
-.
The mechanisms needed to keep the mirrors pointed accurately might be complicated.
The mirrors might cause unwanted weather modifications around the ground stations (see below and ch. 8).
SOURCE: K. W. Billman, W. P. Gilbreath, and S. W. Bowen, Solar Energy Economics Revisited: The Promise and Challenge of Orbiting
Reflector for World Energy Supply, DOE SPS Program Review,
June 8, 1979.
*I
Ibid
Astronaut/es
Transportation
Transportation strategy in the early development phase and engineering verification is to
use the shuttle or an upgraded shuttIe to their
maximum capacities. In these, as well as later
demonstration and production phases, using
83-316 0 - 81 - 7
90 Solar
Power Satellites
Space Construction
As currently designed, the space component
of the reference system would be constructed
in CEO. However, it may be more cost effective to build the necessary facilities and
satellites in LEO and transport them to CEO
fully constructed. Such a scenario would reduce the number of personnel needed in CEO
as well as lower the total mass that must be
transported there.
Introducing one of the LEO scenarios (i. e.,
laser or mirrors) would open up significant
changes in the construction and transportation
option for the SPS. Even a change in one major
component of the reference system satellite
could alter the ways in which the transportation and construction components are configured. For example, if the photovoltaic cells
were to be replaced by solar thermal conversion systems, it would be attractive to construct satellites in LEO and transport them to
CEO on their own power because they would
suffer less from passage through the Van Allen
radiation belts.
Of all the alternative options for SPS construction in the production phase, the prospective use of nonterrestrial materials is perhaps
the most innovative and, ultimately, capable
of the maximum potential return on investment.
The basic premise of the nonterrestrial materials option is that the cost, energy and materials requirements, and environmental impact
of lifting the enormous cumulative masses
needed to establish and operate a system of
many satellite power stations off the Earth can
be markedly reduced by utilizing first lunar
materials, and eventually materials obtained
from asteroids. The fundamental physical principle that supports this premise is that it takes
over 20 times as much energy to launch an object to geostationary orbit from the Earth as it
does from the Moon, and the situation for as-
teroidal materials could be even more favorable. The primary drawback is the high upfront cost of establishing the necessary mining base on the Moon and the space-based facility needed to construct and assemble the
SPS. Hence, it is not likely that nonterrestrial
materials would be used in the prototype,
demonstration, or even the early phases of SPS
production. However, if a commitment is
made to produce a large-scale SPS system in
CEO, the lunar materials supply option could
well be less expensive than the Earth-launched
option (including payback of the initial investmerit) . 64 It has been argued that by bootstrapping the operation (i. e., using nonterrestrial
material right from the beginning, not only to
build the SPS but to build all the necessary
facilities as well), there is no need for any new
launch-vehicle development (a major element
in the up-front investment); i.e., the present
space shuttle can provide all the Earth-launch
space transportation needed to implement an
operational multi-SPS network. 65
Decisions on the nonterrestrial materials option clearly hinge on the results of current and
projected SPS technology studies and experiments. Sufficient research on the two technological factors unique to nonterrestrial materials developmentthe mass driver (both for
lunar materials transfer and for in-space propulsion) and lunar materials mining and processing capability should be done so that a
decision to proceed with either the Earth or
nonterrestrial materials options could be properly made. Other study and research requirements for the nonterrestrial materials option
include system analyses (including design of
an SPS that maximizes the use of lunar materials), more intensive searches for appropriate
Earth-approaching asteroids, and establishing
capabilities for the host of space operational
functions needed for other space programs.
As is clear from the preceding discussion, it
is difficult to establish a priori alternatives to
construction, assembly, and transportation,
Davld L Akin, Optimization of Space Manufacturing Systerns, in Space Manufacturing ///, Jerry Grey and Christine Krop
(eds ) (New York. AlAA, November 1979)
b50Nelll, op cit
SPS COSTS
Figure 23.Reference System Costs
(dollars in billions)a
SPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Test article hardware . . . . . . . . . . .
LEO base (8 man) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Manned orbital transfer vehicle. . .
Shuttle flights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shuttle booster. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Management and integration . . . .
Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Millions
of dollars
$ 370
210
2,400
Percent
of total
1,200
5
3
30
15
870
2,900
61
36
1
11
$8,000
Power generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Power transmission . . . . . . . . . . . .
Structures and control. . . . . . . . . .
Space construction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Space transportation . . . . . . . . . . .
System studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research flight test . . . . . . . . . . . .
Millions
of dollars
$ 79
40
22
25
20
19
165
Percent
of total
21
11
6
7
5
5
45
Demonstrator:
DDT&E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hardware. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pilot production facilities . . . . . . .
Shuttle DDT&E and fleet . . . . . . . .
Construction:
DDT&E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hardware. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Space operations (4 years
operations, construct bases,
and demonstrations) . . . . . . . . .
Personnel orbital transfer vehicle
(DDT&E and hardware). . . . . . . .
Electric orbital transfer vehicle
(DDT&E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Demonstration rectenna . . . . . . . .
Management and integration . . . .
$370
SOURCE: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SOURCE:
Millions
of dollars
Percent
of total
$2,700
2,500
400
3,000
12
2
13
3,100
3,000
13
13
2,800
12
1,700
1,800
1,800
200
8
8
1
11
$23,000
Percent
of total
29
30
4
13
13
1
ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS
Systems other than the reference system
might be more or less costly, depending on factors such as the achievable efficiency, the
mass in orbit, and the state of development of
the alternative technologies that make up
these systems. At present, these alternatives
are much less defined and their costs accordingly even more uncertain than the reference
system costs. The following discussion summarizes available cost data and the greatest cost
uncertainties of the alternative systems.
The unit cost of the solid-state devices is unknown. However, the semiconductor industry has considerable experience in producing
large numbers of reliable solid-state components at low cost, and the learning curve
for such production is well-known. In principle, it should be possible to make a realistic
prediction of costs when the appropriate device or devices are well characterized.
Solid-state efficiencies. Present efficiencies
are much lower than for the klystron. Current research is aimed at increasing their
operating efficiency (to reach at least 85 percent).
Mass in space. Current estimates of the mass
per kilowatt of delivered power 72 suggest
that the mass in space would be higher than
that of the reference system making the
transportation costs higher as well.
7
*G. Hanley, Satellite Power Systems (SPS) Concept Definition Study, vol. 1, Rockwell International SSD-8O-O1O8-I, October 1980.
97
Figure 25.Elements and Costs, in 1977 Dollars, for the Baseline (photovoltaic
conversion, 4,146 km, inclined orbit) SOLARES System
Solar cells
NOTE: Total costs are proportional to the areas of the circles. Interest and contingency constitute 33 percent of the total SOLARES costs.
SOURCE: K. W. Billman, W. P. Gilbreath, and S. W. Bowen, Space Reflector Technology and Its System Implications AlAA paper 79-0545,
AIAA 15th Annual Meeting and Technical Display, 1979.
% Variation of parameters
SOURCE: Ken Billman, W. P. Gilbreath, and S. W. Bower, Space Reflector
Technology and Its System Implications AlAA paper 79-0545 AlAA
15th Annual Meeting and Technical Display, 1979,
Chapter 6
SPS IN CONTEXT
Contents
Page
Energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......101
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 101
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......,101
Determinants of Demand. . ..........102
Energy Supply Comparisons . . . . . . . ...104
Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
The Effects of SPS on Civilian Space
Poilcy and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . .135
Space Policy. . . . . .................135
Current and Projected Space Projects. . .137
Institutional Structures. . ............139
indirect Effects and Spinoffs. . ......139
Table No.
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
Figure No.
Table No.
Page
14. Criteria for Choice, , . ..............105
15. Characteristics of Five Electrical
Technologies.. . . .................110
Page
Page
Chapter 6
SPS IN CONTEXT
ENERGY
Introduction
Because of its long development Ieadtime,
solar power satellites (SPS) will not be available to any extent before the early part of the
next century and will therefore do very little to
relieve our dependence on imported oil. SPSs
primary use would be to replace old powerplants and meet any new demand for electricity. Consequently, the potential value of
the SPS must be determined in competition
with other future electricity sources and in the
context of U.S. and global electricity demand.
This chapter examines this topic in detail by
looking at the future demand for energy, and
electric power in particular, in the United
States, and the various supply options that
could compete with the SPS. Global energy demand and the SPS in a worldwide context is examined in chapter 7.
Overview
The U.S. energy future can be divided into
three time periods according to the supply options that will be available. These periods are
roughly the next 10 years (near term), from
1990 to approximately 2020 (the midterm or
transition period), and beyond 2020 (the long
term). Although these boundaries are not hard
and fast, they roughly define periods in which
particular energy supply forms will dominate.
Near Term
In the near term, there will be no significant
change from our current reliance on oil, natural gas, and coal. Currently about 92 percent of
our Nations energy supply comes from these
fuels. About one-quarter of the total is imported (almost all in the form of oil). Because
of finite suppIies, overalI consumption of these
liquid and gaseous fossil fuels must eventually
be reduced. However, the most important goal
over the next decade is the reduction of oil imports in order to avoid the severe economic
problems that would result from potential supply interruptions and to improve the U.S. trade
deficit. To do this, concentration must be
placed on lowering demand growth by increasing the efficiency of energy use, and switching
to the use of more abundant domestic fuels.
Of the two, improving energy efficiency will be
the major new source of energy because of the
much longer Ieadtime needed to bring on new
fuel supplies such as coal and nuclear. Domestic oil and natural gas can be developed
more quickly, but it is not likely that they will
contribute to reducing oil imports since both
will probably decline in production for the
decade. A recent OTA technical memorandum estimates a 25-to 45-percent drop in U.S.
oil production by 1990. Thte use of nuclear
energy will increase, but at a slower rate than
in the 1970s. Finally, solar and biomass energy
production will grow rapidly during the 1980s
but the absolute magnitude will be low compared to oil imports. Therefore, although an increase in the amount of coal, solar, biomass,
and possibly nuclear energy sources is expected, they will probably not be able to contribute enough by themselves to relieve the
pressures caused by U.S. dependence on imports.
Transition Period: Midterm
In the period from 1990 to 2020, substantial
supply shifts will occur. Although the period
will begin with heavy dependence on coal, oil,
and natural gas, it will end with a much greater
reliance on renewable and inexhaustible energy resources. U.S. dependence on imported oil
will almost surely come to an end if for no
other reason than that the availability of oil on
the world market will have dropped substantially. World oil production may drop as much
as 20 percent by 2000 and fall off sharply
thereafter. The dominant fuels during this
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, World
Petroleum Availability, 1980-2000, technical memorandum, October 1980, OTA-T M-E-5
101
Determinants of Demand
SPS would fit most easily into a high electric
growth future. Such a future is contrary to recent low growth trends. In fact, many conservation initiatives have been directed at reducing the use of electricity because of the high
energy losses at powerplants. Nevertheless,
changes in relative fuel prices and gains in the
efficiency of electric generation and use could
dramatically change the picture.
The energy technology choices the United
States and the world will make in moving
through the three periods described above will
be primarily dictated, as always, by relative
costs. Until recently the dominant factor determining the development of energy technologies has been the type of resource and its
availability. The abundance of oil and natural
gas, and the ease with which it could be
transported and burned, dictated the development of most of the energy-using equipment currently in existence. Some of this
equipment could have been powered more efficiently by electricity, but this advantage was
often dwarfed by the cost advantage these
fuels had over electricity. However, many applications such as electric motors can be made
significantly more efficient, reducing the fixed
cost penalty.
In the past few years the relative prices of
these energy forms have changed because of
the rapid increase in oil and natural gas prices.
Current average electricity prices are about
twice that of oil and four times that of natural
gas. In 1960, the ratio of electricity to oil and
natural gas prices was 7 to 1. Even though the
costs of new powerplants are rising rapidly,
those of electricity will probably rise more
slowly than oil and natural gas, primarily
because of the relative abundance of coal and
uranium. It is even possible that synthetic fuels
from coal and biomass may be more expensive
than electricity from coal, particularly as
newer, more efficient coal combustion technologies are introduced.
The total cost to the energy user also includes the cost of the energy consuming equip-
103
Conclusion
It is likely that as technologies using electricity are improved or new efficient uses are
found, improvements will be made in using
other future nonelectric energy sources such
as biomass and direct solar. While all of these
developments are many years away, it is this
environment in which the SPS will compete.
The success or failure of these new electric
technologies will have a great deal to do with
determining whether or not a market exists for
SPS as well as the other large-scale, electricgenerating technologies.
improve the efficiency and economics of coalfired electric power. Thus, of all the options
for large-scale, long-term production of electricity, coal is the least uncertain technologically and economically and it is appropriate
to view it as a benchmark for evaluating the
others, including SPS.
Use of
the possibility that nuclear energy could contribute to nuclear weapons proliferation disturbs many, though it is debatable whether
renunciation of the nuclear option by the
United States would materially reduce this
risk.
Most of these problems, except proliferation, can be ameliorated by improved technology, procedures, and regulations. But if improvements
are not made quickly, public
opinion could swing against nuclear power in
the United States as it has on occasion in other
Western democracies (e.g., Sweden and Austria). Even if opponents remain in a minority,
they can find many opportunities to trouble
the industry through legal actions, regulatory
appeals and ballot initiative. None of these
may kill a particular project, but they could
discourage utility executives from choosing
the uncertainty and frustration associated with
nuclear power as long as they have other options such as coal.
Utility decisionmakers also have to consider
licensing and financial uncertainties. At present, many design criteria for nuclear plants are
so poorly defined that it is virtualIy impossible
to get a new reactor licensed. This problem
may be resolved over the next few years, but
recent trends have not been reassuring. For instance, a review now underwayto determine
if fundamental changes in reactor designs are
necessary to contain melted fuel cores in case
of severe accidents is expected to last several years.
Some regulatory rulemaking problems stem
from a lack of conclusive data. Others appear
to reflect the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions lack of a clear picture of what it wants
to accomplish and how to do it. Both types of
uncertainties have to be resolved before the
utilities wiII consider ordering many more reactors.
Utility companies also face uncertainty concerning both the capital available to build
plants and the risk of a long-term shutdown.
The cost of a new nuclear plant is now close to
Office of Technology Assessment, U S Congress, Nuclear
Powerp/ant Standardlzat/on, OTA-E-1 34, April 1981
enhance the attractiveness of nuclear compared to other future central power options,
such as SPS, that require large deployments to
justify the development cost.
Nuclear energy can have a future if its problems are addressed effectively and decisively.
To some extent this is happening. The accident
at TM I has revealed weaknesses in reactor
plant design and operator training, to which
the industry and the NRC are responding with
initiatives such as the Institute for Nuclear
Power Operations and the Nuclear Safety
Analysis Center. As a result of the events in the
past 2 years, both regulators and utilities seem
more conscious that extreme safety is in everyones interest.
Whether these measures will ensure safety
in the future and enhance the industrys public
image without pricing the technology out of
reach is still an open question.
FIVE FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES
The following discussion summarizes the
salient characteristics of the four central
renewable or inexhaustible energy technologies that have been chosen for comparison
with the SPS. While each of these alternatives
is compatible with centralized electricity production in a utility application, they are not
equally applicable for baseload power production. Photovoltaics and solar thermal sources
vary over the course of a day and the season in
a fashion that makes them well-suited for
peaking applications. Fusion, the breeder and
SPS would work most efficiently producing
constant power 24 hours per day, so they are
naturally suited for baseload power production. The applicability of photovoltaics and
solar thermal can be broadened to cover intermediate and possibly baseload applications
by the addition of storage capability, but over
the next 10 to 20 years there may be little
cause to do so, for two reasons. The first is that
the most cost-effective application of solar
thermal and photovoltaic systems is likely to
be as fuel savers until all the oil and gas-fired
generating facilities have been retired from
utility systems. Second, electric storage is far
more versatile and cost effective for a utility if
Fusion
Plant description
500-1,500 MW
Scale of power
output
Power output in Baseload
relation to load
profile
Breeder
SPS
500-1,500 MW
1-100 GW (lasers
smaller)
Base load
Baseload
Versatility
Complexity
Reliability
High
Between 0.6 and 0.75
Medium
Same as LWR (fuel
cycle reliability?)
Same as LWR
Photovoltaics
Solar thermal
10 kW to greater
10 kW-100 MW
than 100 MW
Peaking, intermediate, Peaking, intermediate,
baseload (with storbaseload (with storage
age, but expensive at
expensive)
high-capacity factor)
Cogeneration?
Centralized, limited ver- Also cogeneration,
high-temperature proc- satility. Some military
connection and
ess heat
relevance to space
colonies and space
manufacturing
Low
Lowest
High
No good reason to
Between 0.6 and 0.9,
Greater than 0.9 ( = 1think its worse than
Iike other steam
time for repair)
plants
steam technologies.
Between 0.6 and 0.9
(laser-exception)
Without storage: 0.2 to Without storage: 0.2 to
Between 0.6 and 0.9
0.25. With storage:
to 0.9
Can design around,
common material, sophisticated processing
Few and skilled for
space construction,
less skilled for receiver construction
Same as LWR
Comparable to other
centralized solar
systems; 6.5
acres/MW or less
5 to 12 years (including Similar to other centralized technologies,
licensing)
5 to 12 years
Greater than 30 years
Greater than 30 years;
(replace steam
design like other
generator;
systems, but limited
experience
$40
billion to $100
$10 billion to $15
billion (?)
billion to achieve first
operating satellite
l-year payback
2- to 20-year payback
UP
U P
Plentiful, domestic
materials; need to
build manufacturing
industry
Moderate to large, decentralized larger
Land
requirements
5 to 10 acre/MW
Construction
Ieadtime
5 to 12 years?
Short; minimum 48
hours for 7 kW
Lifetime
Costs of RD&D
$1 billion to $2 billion
Net energy
balance
Operating costs
Unknown
1 to 2/kWh
Capital costs
$2,000 to $2,500/kW;
$1,500 to $2,000/kW
Material
requirements
Labor
requirements
Decommissioning costs
Minor
Minor
Moderate to large,
decentralized larger
2- to 20-year payback
Impacts
Institutional impacts (ownership)
Similar to present
Similar to present
institutional structure institutional structure
111
Fusion
Breeder
SPS
Deployment
Solar thermal
Photovoltaics
Small
Low; possible safety
hazard with decentralization in event of fire
Small
Low possible manufacturing risk of PV
None, possible benefits None, possible benefits
of exporting benign
of exporting benign
technology are good
technology are good
Low
Low
considerations
Compatibility
Good
with other technologies and
utility grid
Other
Probability for
commercial
success
Demonstration
requirements
Resource
constraints
Risks of RD&D
failure
(Developed) 15 to 20
Long (greater than 20
years domestic (Iicen- years)
sing)
Low population area
Low population, no
water needed; mixed
Good
High
Small (1OO-MW
aggregate of 2 to 3
demos)
Small
Negligible
Negligible
Cell costs
Yes, if t works
Easier to digest in
small to moderate
chunks
High
Relative
High, complex
uncertainties
Is it a viable ex- Yes
ample for the
rest of the
world?
Nature of RD&D Magneticpublic;
process
inertial classified
Decentralizedvery
Decentralizedvery
close; centralized
close; centralized
S. W.-less than or
S. W.-less than or
equal to other sysequal to other systems. Geographic detems. Geographic dependence high
pendence high
Penetration may be Iim- Goes down with higher Goes down with higher
percentage penetrapercentage penetraited to 20 percent.
tion; negligible probtion; negligible
Competes with other
lems
technology. Nothing
obviously unsolvable
High
Low to medium
None
Low to medium
Easier to digest in
small chunks; need
manufacturer capacity, but good example
Needs to be demonNeed not be demonstrated by Government strated by Governwith private particiment, large private
contribution
pation; industry will
develop
to continuing tests and studies to reduce heliostat costs, R&D for efficient and cost effective
storage methods, improved receiver designs
and transport fIuids are also needed.
2. Solar Photovoltaics. This technology is the
newest of the terrestrial solar options under
study and it is conceptually the simplest, since
it converts sunlight directly to electricity
without any working flu ids, boilers or generators. Because the essential elementa semiconductor wafer or cell is modular at a
very small size, the technology has a versatility
in scale of deployment that surpasses any
other option. Photovoltaic (PV) cells have
already proved feasible in small-scale applications for both space and terrestrial purposes.
However, central PV systems have not been
tested yet, even in a pilot plant size. Because
the technology is so intrinsically modular, the
R&D program is not geared to the demonstration of a series of prototype plants but to the
improvement of the cost and performance
characteristics of the celIs.
A variety of different semiconductor materials is being developed for possible use in central PV systems. When sunlight falls on wafers
of these materials, it produces a direct current
of electricity. The efficiency of this process
depends on many semiconductor properties,
and how well those properties match the wavelength spectrum of sunlight. Typically, the
materials produce a direct current (DC) voltage
level of about 0.5 volts. Some of the more
promising PV developments include the four
technologies discussed below.
The single cell silicon technology is the
most highly developed, and its introduction dates back 23 years to the beginning
of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) space program. Its
properties are well understood and cells
sold commercially for small-scale applications routinely achieve efficiencies of 10
to 13 percent; experimental cells have
achieved 15 percent and the theoretically
probable maximum is 20 to 22 percent.
The single most important barrier to commercial use is the high production cost,
even though costs have dropped and performance improved over the past decade
in line with DOE projections. Further cost
reductions to ($95/m2) $0.70/peak watt)
and performance improvement to 13.5percent efficiency are the DOE goals for
1986.
The cadmium sulfide/copper sulfide technology is another approach that is commercialIy available and holds promise for
improvement. This material can be used
in thin films because of its high absorbance of sunlight, with a reduction in
fabrication costs and materials requirements. Experimental cells have achieved
efficiencies of 9 percent, with limited
lifetime. Improved cells have the potential for cost reductions to $10/m 2 at 10percent efficiency. A number of other
cadmium sulfide technologies are under
study for thin film and standard cells.
The gallium arsenide technology is
another alternative that has achieved efficiencies up to 24.5 percent in experimental cells. The material can be fabricated in
thin films (with experimental efficiencies
to 15 percent) and can withstand concentrated sunlight at high temperatures. Its
major disadvantage is that commercial
production is still some time away and
costs remain much higher than for singlecrystal silicon.
The polycrstalline and amorphous silicon
174
Solar
Power
Satellites
centrating system. Concentrating systems involve different tradeoffs and are further from
commercial viability than flat-plate systems.
Both line- and point-focus collectors are under
consideration for PV concentrating systems.
Costs of concentrating systems can in principle
be low, since the receiving area needs only to
be covered with a thin reflective sheet, but the
technology is not developed enough to make
project ions yet.
Up to half the cost in a flat-plate design terrestrial solar photovoltaic plant today is for
the cells themselves. Other requirements for a
complete plant are materials for packaging
and supporting arrays of celIs, support structures, cabling to connect the arrays and
modules, and power conditioning equipment
to convert the DC voltage to alternative current compatible with the utility grid. About 300
cells would be combined into one panel, 30
panels into one array, and 10,000 arrays into
one module supplying 25 MW of peak power.
30
115
Federal Republic
of Germany
KNK-I (58 MWt)
KNK-11 (58 MWt)
SNR-300 (300 MWe)
SNR-2 (nominally 1,600 MWe)
1. 1960GFK, Karlsruhe project
begins
2. 1964Design study for 1,000 MWe
LMFBR
3. 1966SNEAK startup
4. 1975SNEAK experiments for SNR
300
5. 1967INTERATOM F.R.G. and
BENELUX cooperation
begins
6. 1972KNK-I goes critical
7. 1976KNK-11 goes critical
8. 1969SNR-300 safety report
9. 1970SNR-300 company established
10. 1971SNR-300 revised safety report
11. 1972SNR-300 sodium fuel pumps
tested
12. 1973SNR-300 construction begins
13. 1974SNR-300 steam generators
and IHX test
14. 1975SNR-300 specification of fuel
and cladding
15. 1980SNR-300 goes criticala
16. 1974SNR-2 company established
17. 1976SNR-2 preliminary designa
18. 1981 SNR-2 construction beginsa
Japan
Joyo (100 MWt)
Monju (300 MWe)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
as~h~dl~ as of 197& In 1980, the SNR program currently in flux. SNR-301) designed but not yet licensed. SNR-2 not Yet designed. Entire Pro9ram will sli P substantially,
but the new schedule is not known at this time.
SOURCES: France: U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, The LkfFBR Program In France, ERDA 76-14, March 1976; M. D. Chauvin, The French
Breeder Reactor Program, 1976.
Federal Republic of Germarty: U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, The /_ J14FBR Program in Germany, ERDA 76-15, June 1976.
Jepem Report of Ad Hoc Study Committee organized by Japanese Government Science and Technology Agency, October 1977.
SOURCE: International Energy Associates Limited, 1980.
United Kingdom
Reactors
DFR (60 MWt)
PFR (250 MWe)
CFR (commercial size)
U.S.S.R.
United States
Clementine (25 kWt)
EBR-1 (1.2 kWt)
Fermi (200 MWt)
EBR-11 (16.5 MWe)
Clinch River (375 MWe)
Fast Flux Test Facility
(equivalent of 160 MWe)
PLBR (commercial size)
CBR (commercial size)
1. 1946Clementine goes critical
2. 1951EBR-1 goes critical
3. 1963Fermi goes critical
4. 1966Fermi shuts down
5. 1983 -EBR-II goes critical
6. 1971SEFOR (U.S. and F. R. G.)
goes critical
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
117
United States
U.S.S.R.
pLBR schedule, penal Ing final ~eclsions on CRBR. CRBR iS in Construction, but has been in a hold-
As a source of centrally generated electricity, the breeder has been proven feasible at the
pilot plant scale and at an intermediate
scale but awaits demonstration at commercial
scale that is the 1,000-MW size of new conventional reactors. Its operating characteristics are expected to be similar to a conventional (light water) reactor, except that it will
have higher thermal efficiency and therefore
less thermal pollution. Breeders may also in
principle be used for industrial process heat.
The Russian breeder BNR-600 produces electricity and desalinated water.
The technology was demonstrated at a pilot
plant scale in the United States in 1963, when a
10-MW reactor named EBR-II started producing electricity in Idaho. Between the 1960s
and 1970s, technical leadership shifted from
the United States to France. The Phenix which
has produced electricity for more than 5 years
at Marcoule, France, demonstrated successful
scaling from 10 to 250 MW, but suffered some
technical problems that required the plant to
shut down for more than a year. Its breeding
rate is considered too slow for commercial use,
and some components (especially steam gen-
119
83-316 0 - 81 - 9
P r o g r a m A s s e s s m e n t R e p o r t s t a t e m e n t o f f i n d i n g s , SPS
Con-
SOURCE: Program Assessment Report Statement of Findings, SPS Concept and Evaluation Program, DOE/E R-0085, 1980.
125
Technology
Prospective
Relative
economic-cost
range a (1 980 $) environmental
(mills per kWh)
costs
Scientific
Engineering/
technical
Commercial
80-440
65-86
62-89
58-73
Unknown
Negligible
Negligible
Substantial
Proven b
Proven
Proven
Proven
Unproven
Proven
Proven
Proven
Unproven
Unproven
Proven
Fusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44-75C
Unproven
LWR-201O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
Proven
Proven
LWR-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
Moderatesubstantial
Moderatesubstantial
Proven
Commercial
readiness
(year)
2005-2015
Late 1980s
Late 1980s
2000
?
Operational
plant. Fusion and the breeder may thus compete with each other for R&D funds.
The costs of the SPS will be substantially
higher than for any of the other options, at an
estimated figure of $40 biIIion to $100 bilIion. 7
The high number assumes all space development and pIant investment costs are allocated
to the SPS (see ch. 5), while the lower number
assumes the total cost but allocates $60 bill ion
to other space programs that could benefit
from the same technical capability.
The SPS RD&D cost is so high that commitment to it could foreclose fusion or the
breeder. As such, a decision at some point in
the future to commit to the SPS would be a
decision with potentially far-reaching consequences.
In fact, the SPS is the first proposed energy
option whose RD&D costs enter the budgetary
range that has previously been limited to very
high-technology, high-cost national defense
programs such as the MX missile system. That
system, as proposed, will cost $34 billion to
$50 billion. Thus, from a policy point of view,
the SPS is qualitatively different from any
other proposed long-range energy solution.
Institutional Impacts. Neither fusion nor
fission requires much that is new institutionally because their size, health and environ men170TA Workshop on Technical OptIons, December 1979
seem to have purely beneficial national security effects, however. They can be exported and
used around the world for peaceful purposes.
Because they would be used in relatively small
units, they would be much less vulnerable than
any larger unit and less of a military risk for a
country selling the technology.
SPS would have indirect military potential,
largely from the technology that would be
developed for space transportation and space
construction. However, the system itself would
serve as a poor weapon. The question of vulnerability of an SPS system to nuclear or other
attack is a different issue. On the whole it is Iittle more vulnerable than any of the larger terrestrial electricity options (see ch. 7).
Economic Risks of RD&D Failure. In
general, the risks of failure are tied directly to
the opportunity costs for the different central
electric technologies. Therefore, the risks are
higher for fusion and SPS than for any of the
others. However, the financial risks of failure
may be mitigated if some of the RD&D costs
are recoverable for other uses. For example,
the space spinoffs from developing the SPS
could be significant (an upgraded shuttle,
space platform technology, an orbital transfer
vehicle technology, high powered microwave
or laser transmission devices), which would
reduce the economic risks. Here, as in the
strictly research phase of an SPS program, it is
very important to be cognizant of other space
and energy programs that could benefit from
dollars spent on SPS research and vice versa.
Safety and Health Risks. OTA pursued no
independent study of health and safety risks of
the five technologies. This assessment has
therefore relied on the work of Argonne National Laboratory that was funded by the SPS
office of DOE. 9 The reader is referred to its
report for a comprehensive treatment of the
problem (see also app. D). The Argonne study
attempted to quantify risks in terms of the
number of fatalities that would occur per year
for a specified plant output (see fig. 29). Some
of the issues are unquantifiable, and for the
Operation and
maintenance, public
Operation and
maintenance, occupational
Construction, mfr.
Comparative
Assessment
of
t h e SPS a n d
Nuclear
Catastrophic events
Land use
Thermal discharge waste
disposal
SPS
Atmospheric changes
Bioeffects from microwaves,
lasers, reflected light
Electromagnetic disturbance
Land use
Other factors. How well would SPS compete with other baseload electric technologies? This question can ultimately be
answered only in the context of overall demand for electricity, considerations that are
taken up at the end of this chapter. However, if
demand for electricity is such that SPS may be
needed to supply a portion of that demand,
then the competitive position of SPS vis-a-vis
the other technologies will depend primarily
on its being cost competitive, and presenting
comparable health or environmental hazards
to the other technologies. Other utility concerns such as its reliability and rated capacity
factor have direct and obvious economic impacts that are subsumed in the condition of its
being cost competitive. It is too early to tell
whether SPS can compete effectively. What is
clear, however, is that factors beyond the
scope of control of an SPS program may determine more effectively whether SPS is competitive than the important concerns over
costs or health and environmental effects. The
effects of reduced coal useage are examined
below. However, before the United States
needs to decide whether it is prudent to continue or expand coal burning (c 2000), it must
make a decision about the use of breeder reactors (c 1990). If we institute a strong breeder
program, then SPS is less likely to be needed
than otherwise, simply because breeders are
apparently cheaper to build and operate than
the SPS. They have the further competitive advantage that they strongly resemble LWRS,
both in operating characteristics and in health,
safety and environmental impacts.21 Thus, utilities are more Iikely to purchase breeders than
to take on a brand new technology whose maE. P Levine, et al , Comparative Assessment of Environmental Welfare Effects of the Satellite Power Sytem and Other
Energy Alternatives, DOE report No DOE/E R-0055, April 1980
system35 latitude. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Average annual
insolation (per
square meter)
11,800 kWh
9,734 kWh
1,430 kWh
2,410 kWh
28 km2
10
6
44
26
km2
km2
km2
km2
.
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment,
such a central terrestrial system would be subject to short-term and seasonal variations in
output due to fluctuations in insolation
brought out by cloud cover. This effect is illustrated in table 20 for the Boston and
Phoenix areas. The daily insolation for the
month of December is 28-percent less than for
the average month, resulting in 28- percent less
PV output for the same sized array. Phoenix,
by contrast, experiences average insolation
values only 14 percent lower than the average
in July, its month of lowest insolation.
Decentralized Electrical Generation
Although technologies that are capable of
producing electricity in a dispersed mode may
not be direct competitors of centralized
technologies, they will compete for a percentage share of overall electricity supply in this
country and the world. In 1977, the residential
sector of the electrical market constituted 36
percent of this Nations demand for electricity.
If a significant portion of this demand as well
as part of the demand for commercial and industrial consumption can be met by dispersed
technologies such as solar PV, wind, and
biomass at costs that are competitive with centralized electricity, then the demand for centrally produced electricity will drop. Low demand for centrally produced electricity will in
turn reduce the need for new, large-scale
generating technologies and place them in a
poor competitive position with respect to
proven technologies. Thus, it is of considerable
interest to investigate the role that dispersed
electrical technologies may play in the Nations energy future.
129
kWh/m
kWh/m 2/month
Jan.
Feb.
3.4
104
3.7
104
Mar.
4.1
126
Apr.
4.0
119
May
4.4
135
June - J u l y
4.3
4.6
129
142
Aug.
4.4
137
Sept.
4.4
131
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
4.1
126
3.0
90
2.8
85
kWh/m /day
kWh/m 2/month
6.0
184
Feb.
7.0
195
Mar.
7.4
228
Apr.
7.5
225
May
6.6
204
June
6.2
186
July
5.7
178
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
6.2
185
7.0
218
7.3
227
6.7
200
6.0
185
131
Household
Without storage
Boston
Roof replacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Flat on roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Columns on roof or ground . . . . . .
NOTE:
3.0
3.9
8.3
Phoenix
1.8
2.3
4.9
With storage*
Phoenix
Boston
9.0
9.9
14.7
7.O
7.6
10.4
Without storage
Boston
Phoenix
8.O
4.7
With storage*
Boston
18.9
Phoenix
12.9
These costs were developed assuming photovoltaic arrays costing $35/m2 and 17-percent efficiency in space (18 percent on ground). Further details of the
Assumed
Implications
Introduction
The discussions just completed illustrate
that the future of the SPS, assuming it can be
developed technically, depends on a variety of
factors. These include the future demand for
electricity and how SPS compares with other
supply technologies. There are two questions
to be answered: 1) is the SPS necessary at all?
2) if so, when do we need it? The section on demand showed that future electricity needs are
highly uncertain and are dependent on technological developments that can profoundly influence the costs of various end use technologies. The section on supply contained discussion of several technologies that would compete, partially or completely, with the SPS to
supply electricity for the long term. The section gave criteria for choosing between these
technologies and the range of uncertainty
about their potential success. From the discussion it is clear that a variety of factors beyond
purely technical success will determine which
supply technology(ies) wiII emerge.
To see this more clearly, OTA chose three
hypothetical U.S. energy futures in order to examine possible future supply mixes. They were
chosen to span a wide range of possible elec-
in the CONAES scenario A is 74 Quads, compared to actual use in 1979 of 78.9 Quads.24
The high scenario represents a major expansion of the use of electricity in all sectors. The
scenario is taken from the E 1A Series C projection from the Long-Term Energy Analysis Program. The total primary energy use in this
scenario is 169 Quads. The scenario projects a
major shift in residential fuel use, with electricity supplying 60 percent of all residential
needs and 55 percent of residential heating.
(Water and space heating alone are projected
at 8 Quads end-use electricity in 2020.) Electricity is expected to provide 70 percent of the
commercial energy demand in 2020. In this
project ion, EIA forecasts that the industrial
sector wilI grow faster than any other sector,
and that industrial use of electricity will triple
or quadruple by 2020. Total energy use in the
industrial sector in the scenario is 63 Quads in
2020. Electricitys share of the industrial
energy sector rises from 11 to 20 percent. The
dominant supply technologies in the scenario
are coal and nuclear, with coal providing 60
percent, nuclear 33 percent, and hydro and
other renewable the remainder. The E 1A scenario was extrapolated to 2030, using the same
electric growth rate as assumed in 2010 to
2020, namely 1.9 percent. According to the extrapolation of this scenario, the total energy
use in 2030 is 196 quads and the total electricity use is 30.2 Quads (end use).
The middle scenario is chosen to be the midpoint between the high and low scenarios at
each of the decades projected. The end-use
figures for each of these three scenarios are
given in table 22.
OTA does not suggest these demand levels
as forecasts of what will occur. These futures
24[ner~y jn Trans;tjon,
OP c I t
End-use electrical
(Quads)
30.2
18.8
7.4
Primary total
energy (Quads)
196
135
74
were chosen to illustrate the way various technologies might be used and the constraints
that might be placed on their selection.
To characterize the mix of supply technologies possible under these scenarios, a number
of questions was addressed. Among these
questions were the numbers and kinds of technologies that would contribute to the supply
mix under the various scenarios, the maximum
reasonable SPS contribution under each scenario, the most likely technologies to replace
SPS were it not deployed, and the relative implementation rates of the various technologies
under different demand conditions. The exercise carried the simplifying assumption that
one technology could be substituted for
another These questions cannot be answered
precisely, but their discussion leads to interesting insights into the potential role of SPS.
Low-Demand Future
For this case, end-use energy demand for
electricity is selected to be 7.5 Quads (todays
level). A zero electric growth future is likely to
be the result of substantial conservation
probably resulting from high energy prices
and the failure to develop end-use technologies that use electricity at a lower net cost
than technologies using liquid or gaseous fuels
and direct solar. The principal feature of this
future is that electricity demand can be satisfied without SPS, fusion or breeder reactors.
The supply potential of coal, hydro, ground
based solar (including wind) and conventional
nuclear would be more than sufficient to meet
demand Even if coal were to be phased out
due to negative findings about the CO, buildup, its share could probably be absorbed by
other sources. Zero growth in electricity demand gives the nation considerable time for
developing new technologies.
In this situation utilities would only need to
replace retiring plants. Therefore they would
have considerable latitude in choosing technologies. Further, a zero growth rate would not
favor large plants because they would add too
much capacity at one time. Therefore, smallscale, dispersed technologies may play a major
role in this future. If any of the new tech-
133
With coal
7.5
20.0
30.0
0
0-60
100-200
Without coal
0-30
100-200
100-200
Space Policy
The Nations space policy is a reflection of
broad national goals. The principles guiding
the U.S. civilian program were first enunciated
in the 1958 National Aeronautics and Space
Act, and have been periodically reaffirmed
with minor modification and changes of emphasis. The 1958 Act states that activities in
space should be devoted to peaceful purposes
for the benefit of all mankind, to promote the
general welfare and security of the United
States The Act specifies that civilian activities shall be directed by NASA, and military/defense operations by the Department of
Defense. The specific aims of the space program include: expansion of knowledge, improvement of space transportation, the preservation of the role of the United States as a
leader in aeronautical and space sciences,
and cooperation with other nations. NASA was
established to plan, direct and conduct
aeronautical and space activities. 25
These general goals and this framework
have been reaffirmed subsequently, most
recently in the Directive on National Space
Policy and the White House Fact Sheet on
Commer[ e, Science, and Transportation; U.S. Government Printing Of flee, 1978; pp 499-503
136
26
Description of a Presidential Directive on National Space
Policy, j une 20, 1978, and White House Fact Sheet, U.S. Civil
Space Policy, Oct 11, 1978, in Space law, pp 558-564.
further the economic goals that have been emphasized in recent policy proclamations.
The political end of U.S. preeminence in
space, though no longer stressed as strongly as
during the Apollo program, would also be
served by commitment to an SPS. (This
assumes that the project would be successful;
failure of such a high-visibility effort could be
extremely damaging to U.S. prestige. International cooperation might tend to mitigate this
danger. )
The SPS program would not be focused on
increasing basic scientific knowledge, but
much of the research and experimentation required would provide some scientific gains; in
addition, the infrastructure for SPS (e. g., platforms, transportation vehicles) could be used
for a multitude of scientific projects in space.
There is some danger, though, that focusing
the national space program on such a major
applications project as SPS would divert resources and attention, at least temporarily,
from scientific missions.
The effects of SPS on the U.S. policy framework will depend on how it is financed and
managed. Civil-military relations could be
altered. Although the SPS is not technically
suited to be used as a weapons system, much
of SPS technology and infrastructure, especialIy the transportation vehicles, would have
military uses (see ch. 4). Furthermore, it is
unlikely that a project with the scope and impact of SPS could be approved by Congress
without at least the tacit consent of the Department of Defense (DOD). In the foreseeable
future, DOD requirements for aerospace expertise and facilities will be great, and SPS may
be seen as a competitor for scarce resources
unless direct defense benefits can be realized.
Although an SPS program would not be run by
the military, it might be necessary for the civil
and miIitary sectors to be more closely coordinated than has previously been the case.
Foreign cooperation and joint ventures
might be encouraged not only by the desire to
improve international relations but by more
direct economic considerations. (see ch. 7).
These considerations would be strong enough
number of smaller scale operations and scientific missions centered around use of the Shuttle and other components of the Space Transportation System (STS). The lack of a single,
clear, overriding project goal for the civilian
space program has been criticized for squandering NASA and contractor capabilities, and
leaving the United States without a visionary
and profitable use for the new transportation
capabilities under development. This problem
will undoubtedly be addressed during the
1980s, but jurisdictional and philosophical
differences, as well as budgetary constraints,
may make consensus difficuIt to achieve.
For the next 5 years, NASA plans to concentrate on a number of areas: those most directly
relevant to SPS include:
1. Transportation and Orbital Operations:
Transportation efforts will concentrate on
meeting shuttle schedules but also include other elements of STS: the inertial
upper stage, for placing payloads in geosynchronous orbit ( C E O ) ( u n d e r d e v e l opment by the Air Force); Spacelab, for
manned and unmanned experimentation
(joint program with ESA); development of
orbital transfer vehicles such as an electric orbit transfer vehicle (EOTV); systems
to handle payloads outside of the Shuttle;
and free-flying platforms. Each of these
programs will be important for improving
our capability to move and work in space,
and hence directly relevant to SPS. The
key element is the Shuttle, which must
work and work well if these projects are to
proceed during the 1980s. Delays in Shuttle operations, or in building additional orbiters, will not only retard these projects
but also might prevent SPS-specific research flights as envisioned in one of the
policy Options from taking place in the
late 1980s (see ch. 4).
2 I m m e d i a t e A p p l i c a t i o n s : In this area,
space processing experiments to be conducted on Spacelab could be important in
determining the proper kinds of materials
for SPS construction, as well as prospects
for direct processing of raw materials in
orbit. Communications and remote-se ns-
*a Ibid, pp 3-5
107
All of these projects could have direct bearing on SPS and on any future decision to proceed with SPS development. Some of the
longer term aims, such as SEPs, might overlap
with an SPS development program, that would
provide a strong impetus for their completion.
NASA is not the only body with plans for
space. DOD goals, though largely classified,
include large platforms, orbital microwave
radars, and space-based lasers. DOD requirements couId drive NASA projects such as Shuttle thrust augmentation, or lead to separate
development of SPS-useful equipment.
Other long-range projects have been suggested by many individuals and organizations,
in and out of government. In the transportation area, these include very large fully
reuseable launchers; laser-propulsion; 30 Iightsails, to power low-acceleration transfer
vehicles or deep-space missions; 31 and massdrivers to lift material off the lunar surface, or
as a solar-powered propulsion system for
space vehicles. 32 Other than the building of
full-scale permanent colonies, SPS is the
largest space project proposed to date, in
21 b[d Pp
190-205
(l A Hertz berg, K Sun, W Jones, L a s e r A i r c r a f t , A s t r o n a u t i c s
and Aeronautics, March 1979 p 41
K Eric Drexler, Spinoffs To and From SPS Technology: A
Preliminary Assessment, OTA Working Paper, June 1980, p. 9
2(, ONeIll, G Driggers, B. 0Leary, New Routes to Manufacturing In Space, A s t r o n a u t i c s a n d A e r o n a u t i c s , O c t o b e r
1980 Pp 4 6 5 1
Institutional Structures
Would an SPS program require a change in
current national institutions? The completed
SPS Concept Development and Evaluation
Program 33 was a joint DOE/NASA effort, with
DOE providing most of the management and
NASA providing technical support. A decision
to have further SPS research, development,
and demonstration efforts managed by DOE
would likely prove awkward, since the bulk of
the up-front development costs would be for
space systems; hence DOE would have to pass
most of its SPS funding to NASA, or attempt to
develop its own contractor relations and inhouse space capability, which would be timeSatellite Power Systems Concept Development and Evaluation Program, Program Assessment Report Statement of Findings, November 1980, DO E/E R-0085
139
*See
preparation
5 Woodcock, op cit , p 12
3Drexler, op. cit , pp 10-11
the
Apollo
decade
are
con-
CHAPTER 7
Contents
Page
Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......145
Recommendations
............175
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
24. Primary
Page
Chapter 7
145
146
Economic Interest
A recently completed study by the international Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
(IIASA), Energy in a Finite World, 1 provides the
most up-to-date projections of long-range
future global energy demand. The IIASA study
uses a global model with several different
scenarios, broken down on a regional basis.
We will present the high and low estimates to
give the entire range of predictions; it should
be noted that the lower estimates are closer to
those of some recent U.S. studies, such as
Energy in Transition 1985-2010, by the National
Academy of Sciences. 2 (See app. C.) In general
the slowdown in gross national product (GNP)
growth over the past several years, and the
sharp rises in oil prices in 1979, have caused
Energy in a Finite Worid, A Global Systems Analysis, Energy
Systems Program Group, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co,, 1981).
Energy in Transition 1985-2070 (Washington, D. C.: National
Academy of Sciences, 1979).
Ibid
Table 24.Primary Energy Demand (Quads)
2000
2030
High
Low High Low
OECD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146.8 200.3 224.5 266.3 393.4
SU/EE (Soviet Union,
E. Europe) . . . . . . . . . . 55.0 98.9 110.3 149.4 219.1
Developing . . . . . . . . . . . 37.7 107.0 148.9253.8 453.1
Global Total. . . . . . . . . . .239.5406 .2503.7669.5 1,065.6
1975
S6URCE:
I bid., p. 163.
OECD . . . . . . . . . . .
SU/EE . . . . . . . .
Developing. . . . . . .
Global Total . . . . . .
..
12.5
. . . . . 3.9
. .
1.8
. .
18.2
2030
Low
High
35.3
15.5
23.3
74.1
50.2
25.4
41.3
116.9
2000
Low
3,550
2030
High
4,390
Low
6,320
High
9,845
147
Soviet Union up to 55 percent of coal production in North America by 20306 (see app. C).
Regional Variations
In order to understand how different countries might view SPS, it is crucial to highlight
the major regional differences that will affect
demand for electricity. Foremost among them
is the question of regional or national selfsufficiency.
SELF-SUFFICIENT AREAS
In the 50-year time-frame considered, it appears possible for three major consuming
regions North America, Soviet Union/Eastern
Europe, and China to achieve energy selfsufficiency. This would require rapid development of indigenous sources of North American
oil shale, tar sands, and Western coal; for the
Soviet Union, untapped oil, gas and coal reserves in Central and Eastern Siberia; for
China, development of oil and coal deposits
and expanded exploration in Western China. In
all three cases very substantial growth in
nuclear and/or solar, hydro, and other generating sources would also be required. With
the possible exception of U.S. and Soviet coal,
none of these regions is likely to export significant energy supplies, since indigenous
growth will absorb most new capacity even
under optimistic scenarios.
The costs of achieving regional self-sufficiency would be very high. Development of
North American oil shale and tar sands, for instance, on a scale sufficient to produce oil and
gas in quantities comparable to the large commercial oilfields of today, will cost hundreds
of billions of dollars. Such development will
also be dirty environmentalIy, involving extensive surface-mining, and hence expensive to
clean up and to regulate.
In the Soviet Union, currently the worlds
largest oil producer, finding the capital for major energy investments during the 1980s will
be difficult. Inefficiencies in central planning
practices are likely to be magnified as de-
bid , p 669,
precisely, a liquid fuels problem. 11 A s d e mand grows over the next 50 years, the ability
of countries to import such fuels to make up
for local shortfalls will dwindle, and prices will
rise sharply.
In summary then, the 50-year forecast is for
an increase in demand for energy of some
three to four times, and an increase in demand
for electricity of some four to six times with
rates being somewhat higher in the currently
developing regions. These forecasts are based
on a declining rate of growth in GNP, averaging some 2.7 percent (in the low scenario) to 3.7
percent (high scenario) per year. (Compared to
a global average of 5 percent from 1960 to
1975.) In general, energy scarcity will cause
higher prices, reducing demand and increasing
supply. The question is whether future supplies
will be so high cost as to force a radical change
in Iiving standards and growth rates. Maintaining a moderate rate of growth in the developed
countries and a somewhat higher growth rate
in the developing world to provide for population increases as well as the prospect of real
increases in living standards will place demands on energy resources that guarantee that
energy costs will consume a larger proportion
of national income than in the past. IIASA
predicts an increase of 2.4 to 3.0 times in the
proportion of gross domestic product (GDP)
spent on energy. Even if IIASAs projections
prove to be on the high side, future energy
sources can expect to be competitive within a
very high-cost ceiIing.
SPS Contribution
SPS could begin to provide electricity by
2010-20 and could be a substantial source of
new power within the selected 50-year period.
None of the global projections to date has considered the possible impact of an SPS system
on future energy scenarios. The rise in electrical consumption is expected to be met by
large increases in coal-fired generators and
nuclear plants. However, there are serious
problems with both methods.
Coal, like oil, is abundant only in certain
areas. Unlike oil, it is expensive to ship comII
Fjnjte wor/d,
149
Within the limits of this study the ClaverieDupas estimates using the IIASA projections
cannot be duplicated. However, by using
IIASAS estimates of installed capacity in 2030,
a rough estimate of global demand can be
made. We can assume that 20 percent of capacity will be reserve, to guard against
outages, and that of the remaining 80 percent,
65 percent will be baseload. Moreover, if we
accept Claverie and Dupas estimate that 10
percent of world demand will be met by decentralized sources, then the global estimate of
the maximum possible demand for installed
baseload capacity in 2030 would be: 80 percent (peakload) x 65 percent (baseload) X 90
percent = (approximately) 47 percent of total
installed capacity. 1 6 Using the IIASA estimates
(tabIe 26) of 6,320 (low scenario) to 9,845 (high)
GWe, then we get 2,970 to 4,627 GWe as the
potential demand for baseload capacity.
The amount of new capacity supplied by
SPS would depend on the percent met by SPS
as opposed to alternate generating sources. If
we assume 10-percent market penetration
there would be demand for 295 GWe (low) to
465 GWe (high); if market penetration were as
high as 50 percent (which is not probable, at
least by 2030) there would be demand for 1485
to 2315 GWe. However, it should be noted that
conventional generators built from 1990-95 on
will still be in operation by 2030; since SPS
would not be available until 2010-15, the new
capacity market will be considerably smaller
than the total demand.
The number of satellites this demand represents would depend on their size; estimates
See: SPS-The Implications for the Utility Industry,
working paper for OTA workshop, July 1980, p, 12,
151
152
SPS.
Noneconomic Interest
Any SPS system would have numerous noneconomic aspects relating to national prestige
and security, and different national and regional interests can be expected to conflict.
There are three separate arenas in which
such confIicts might arise.
Within OECD
Although cooperation between the United
States and other OECD allies is probable, there
would likely be a high degree of competition
centered around economic interests. Control
of any joint program, the division of responsibilities between countries, and the apportionment of economic benefits to be gained from
contracts let during R&D and construction, are
all potential problem areas. In the case of SPS,
the industries involved aerospace and energyare high-prestige ones in which many
countries wish to develop independent capabilities. Fear of economic and technological
dominance by the United States, or of U.S.
failure to follow through on program commitments, may be a spur to accelerated development of European or Japanese launch vehicles
and construction facilities. The ESAs Ariane
expendable launcher program has been largely
motivated by worries about such dependence,
especially by France, Arianes prime mover.
Japan has announced plans for a new generation of launchers, and non-OECD countries
such as Brazil and India have built sounding
rockets and satellites. Increased competition
with the United States can be expected over
the period of SPS development. 22
East-West
Development of an SPS by the Soviet Union
would have major international consequences.
Since Sputnik, each side has reacted to the actions and statements of the other. Although
space successes may no longer be seen as
proof of the superiority of one social system to
22
83-316 0 - 81 - 11
153
The oil-exporting states are in a special position. An SPS would by no means eliminate oil
demand and may prove beneficial by helping
to reduce pressure on exporters to increase
production to satisfy rising export needs.
Countries with large populations and relatively
small reserves, such as Nigeria, Indonesia,
China and Malaysia, may view SPS as insurance against the upcoming depletion of their
oil supplies and may choose to invest some of
their current earnings in the hope of long-term
gains. On the other hand, exporting countries,
especially those with long-term reserve potential such as Saudi Arabia, have no immediate
use for an SPS and may be tempted to side
with other LDCs for political and cultural
reasons in attempts to put pressure on the
West for greater LDC control. Soviet support
for such measures could cause the SPS to
become a highly polarized issue in which the
Soviet bloc and the nonalined states seek concessions from the West a not uncommon
phenomenon in recent international affairs.
LEGAL ISSUES
The United States and other space-capable
states are currently bound by a number of
agreements that would affect SPS developm e n t . 25 Much of existing international law has
been formulated at the United Nations (U. N.)
by the Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
(COPUOS). COPUOS has been in existence
since 1959, when it began with 24 members. It
now has 47, with membership expanding as
international interest in space matters has increased. COPUOS decisions have been made
by consensus rather than by outright voting. 2 6
25
See Stephen Gorove,
SPS lrrternatjona/ Agreements,
DOE/NASA contract No, EG-77-C-01-4024, October 1978; Carl Q.
Christol, SPS International Agreements, DOE/NASA contract No
EG-77-C-01-4024, October 1978.
2Eilene G a l l o w a y , C o n s e n s u s DeCISiOrlrnaklrlg of
UNCOPUOS, )ourna/ of Space Law, vol. 7, No. 1
and Western Europe as legally and scientifically untenable. Control over the orbit by a
few states would prevent free and equitable
access to a crucial position by space-capable
countries.
T h e e q u a t o r i a l c l a i m m u s t b e SPP - -- context of various attempts by tr
to gain leverage over ec~ activities otherwise o seven Bogota sig~ Ecuador, lnd~~
(Brazil
is
., torums
..Y of special
Y u . . .dl
..~ct ~eiimitation bei Ider the jurisdiction of the
, y ing u n d e r n e a t h t h e a r e a c o n d-and outer space has never been de,led. I n r e c e n t y e a r s a n u m b e r o f s t a t e s
located on the Equator have claimed jurisdiction over the geosynchronous orbit on the
grounds that it is not part of outer space but
is determined by the Earths gravitation, and is
a limited natural resource requiring national
control. In December 1976 eight equatorial
countries issued the Bogota Declaration asserting their position and laying claim to the
orbital segments lying over their respective territories.
The equatorial states claims have been rejected by the majority of other nations
including the Soviet Union, the United States,
27space Law se/ected
Basic Documents,
2d
cd,,
U.S
geosynchronous use
..pport among many counlikely to be discussed further when
~~ considers the definition of outer
Ace next year, 28 and when the ITU convenes
a special administrative radio conference on
orbital use in 1984 or 1985.
Even if parts of the orbit cannot be appropriated by sovereign states, there is still the
problem of allocating positions and of deciding competing claims to scarce orbital slots.
The question here is part technical and part
legal: How much space is there, and what constitutes infringement? This is dependent on the
state of technology, since infringement is
not so much a problem of two or more objects
trying to occupy the same place as of electromagnetic interference between nearby satellites (see ch. 8). SPS satellites would not only
be very large but would, especially if using
microwaves, radiate a great deal of energy at
radio frequencies. Each SPS would have to be
allocated a position and frequency to miniSee Gorove, SPS Agreements, op. cit., pp. 14-21; and Delbert
Smith, Space Stations: /nternationa/ Law and Po/icy, Westview
Pre~s, 1979
156
SPS. 31
Environmental
Considerations
758
and 2, PP 88 -89
159
760
Unilateral Interests
From a corporate viewpoint, it is much
easier to do business within a country than to
do so across national boundaries. Multinational ownership or control would complicate
decisionmaking, r e d u c e f l e x i b i l i t y , a n d i n troduce a multitude of political strains that
any company would prefer to avoid. To the extent that foreign markets are attractive, the
company wouId prefer to retain domestic ownership and to sell completed units abroad,
minimizing foreign entanglements.
From the point of view of governments that
might consider investing in SPS, the desire to
do so alone would be very strong, for reasons
of prestige, security, and economics. At present only the United States and the Soviet
Union could even consider such a unilateral effort. In the longer term, however, it is conceivable that a European consortium or
perhaps even a single European statemost
l i k e l y F r a n c e could also undertake such a
project. So could Japan, with possible cooperation from China, South Korea, and other
regional powers with technical expertise and
financial resources.
Is it likely that the United States or the
Soviet Union would build an SPS in the near
future? Such a program would be undertaken
only if there were serious doubt that alternative energy sources will be available in the
future, or that their costs will be acceptable.
This would have to mean that the C0 2 and environmental problems of large-scale coal use
were seen to be acute and imminent, or that
nuclear reactors were deemed unacceptable
due to a major accident and public disapproval. In addition, alternatives to the SPS
such as fusion, ground-based solar cells, and
possible other future technologies, would have
to fail to fill the gap (see ch. 6). In the event of
some such crisis SPS studies must be sufficientIy advanced to provide very high assurance
that such a system would work. Given this
.
]ohn 1 ogsdon, The Decision To Go To rhe Moon (Cambridge,
M,tss Ml T Press, 1970), p 181
161
162
Multilateral
Interests
There are three reasons why interested parties may wish to abandon their preference for
autonomy in favor of an international effort.
These are: 1) to share the high costs and risks;
2) to expand the global market; 3) to forestall
foreign opposition and/or promote international cooperation.
costs
The exact costs of developing, manufacturing, and operating a SPS are unknown; N A S A
Edward Bassett, Europe Competes With U.S. Programs,
Aviation Week and Space Technology, Mar 3,1980, p, 89.
163
Possible Models
Intelsat,
Inmarsat
How might such an organization be constructed, and what are the types of problems
that might be faced? Here it is helpful to look
at historical examples of international organizations in the space and energy fields. We
will look briefly at Intelsat and Inmarsat; at
cooperative efforts in nuclear power; and at
the European Space Agency (ESA).
Of existing bodies, Intelsat and its nearrelative, Inmarsat, have been mentioned most
often as possible models for an international
SPS project. Intelsat is attractive because it
has been efficient and profitable, and because
it has succeeded in including a large number of
participating states.
Forestalling Opposition,
Promoting Cooperation
764
165
cussants have concluded that public sector financing would likely be essential for any SPS
project. z From the state perspective, especially outside the United States, there would be reluctance to rely on private sector development
and control of energy supplies, as well as
potential antitrust problems (especially in the
United States) caused by a concentration of
companies.
ESA
Within Western Europe there have been
ongoing efforts to coordinate national space
programs so as to compete with the United
States and the Soviet Union. In the early 1960s
two organizations were founded: ELDO (the
European Space Vehicle Launcher Development Organization), aimed at designing and
building a European launch vehicle (the
Europa rocket); and ESRO, (European Space
Research Organization) to conduct basic research. Both groups, and especially ELDO, suffered from a lack of direction and from
divergent national interests. 3 Allocation of
contracts was based on the principle of fair
return; contributions to the organization were
in proportion to each states GNP, and contracts were supposed to be let in similar ratios.
This produced intense disagreements and
delays, exacerbated by cost increases which
had to be allocated evenly among the participants.
In the late 1960s Europe began to pay increased attention to the so-called technology
gap between it and the United States. In 1967,
J. Jacques Servan-Schreibers book The Americean challenge polemicized the U.S. economic invasion of Europe and aroused a popular interest in technology comparable to the
Sputnik aftermath in the United States. 6 4 I n terest in joint space efforts increased; the
failure of ELDO to produce a reliable Europa
rocket was heavily criticized, with France and
Germany claiming their willingness to produce
it on their own.
*See Vajk and Kierolff for further discussion
3 See Mihiel Schwarz, European Policies on Space Science
and Technology 1960-1978, Research Policy, August 1979, pp.
205-242,
Henry Nau, Nationa/ Po/itics and /nternat;ona/ Technology
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), p. 55
The late 1960s also produced strong pressures, as in the United States, for projects with
economic payoffs, rather than abstract research or prestige programs. After Apollo, the
United States began to look for ways to reduce
the costs of its proposed Space Transportation
System. One way was increased cooperation
with Europe. While France remained suspicious that such offers were designed to forestal I independent European programs, Germany welcomed NASA proposals for joint development as a way to gain access to U.S. technology and to use of the Space Shuttle. Hence,
whiIe France continued to emphasize launcher
development, Germany turned to production
of Spacelab for NASA.
In 1973, ESRO and ELDO were joined together as the 9-member European Space Agency. Its major projects to date have been: 1) the
Ariane launcher, a $1 billion effort which is 64percent French financed and flown from
Frances
in Guiana, South
spaceport
America; 65 and 2) Spacelab, an $880 million
project, 55-percent German financed, being
built in West Germany. Other ESA projects
have included regional remote sensing, meteorological, and maritime satellites, and a regional communications satellite (L-Sat) being
developed under the guidance of Great Britain. 66
The formation of ESA has not eliminated
intra-European difficulties and the problem of
coordinating national programs. A report in lnteravia charges that individual states are tiring of the paper-passing and consensus-seeking
that is involved in getting programs started and
keeping them alive within the framework of an
international civil-service organization. One
resuIt may be a turn towards commercial alternatives. With the completion of Ariane a new
firm called Arianespace has been formed,
made up of European industries, banks, and
the French National Space Agency, to market
the launcher commercially and in competition
The French Space Effort, Interavia, June 1979, p, 508.
Edward Bassett, ESA Planning New Telecommunications
Satellite, A v;ation Week and Space Technology, Dec 31, 1979,
p 12
European Space Programs: An Industrial Plea for Integrated
Effort,ll Interav;a, August 1979, p. 785,
167
A missile attack from the ground on a geosynchronous SPS would have the disadvantage
of lack of surprise, due to the distances involved and the satellites position at the top of
a 35,000 km gravity well; missiles would take
up to an hour or more to reach, geosynchronous orbit. An attack from prepositioned geosynchronous satellites would be faster and less
detectable. However, a laser or mirror SPS in
low orbit could be reached from the ground in
a matter of minutes. Lasers or particle beams,
which might be used to rapidly deface the
solar celIs or mirrors rather than to cause structural demage, would have virtually instantaneous effect.
A missile attack with a conventional warhead might be difficult due to SPSs very large
size and redundancy. The most vulnerable
spot on the reference and other photovoltaic
designs would be the rotary joint connecting
the antenna to the solar cell array. Laser
transmitters would be more vulnerable due to
their smaller size, though they would also be
easier to harden. Attackers would be tempted
to use nuclear weapons, either directly on the
satellite, or at a distance. I n space a large (one
megaton or more) nuclear blast at up to 1,000
km-distance could cause an electrical surge in
SPS circuitry (the electromagnetic pulse (EMP)
effect) sufficient to damage a photovoltaic
S P S 72 (though it would have no effect on a
mirror-system). Such an attack would be particularly effective against a large SPS system,
as it could destroy a number of satellites
simultaneously. However, like an orbital debris
attack, it has the problem of damaging all
unhardened satellites indiscriminately within
the EMP radius. Furthermore, any use of
nuclear weapons would constitute a serious
escalation of a crisis and might not be considered except in the context of a full-scale
war.
Placing debris in SPSs orbital path, but moving in the opposite direction such as sand
designed to degrade PV cells or mirrors
would have the disadvantage of damaging
other satellites in similar orbits, and of making
the orbit permanently unusable in the absence
of methods to sweep the contaminated areas
clean. The relative ease and simplicity of this
method, however, could make it attractive to
terrorists or other technically unsophisticated
groups. Any explosive attack could have
similar drawbacks, although since the resultant debris would be traveling in the same
direction as most other satellites (which move
with the Earths rotation) the ensuing damage
would be SIight.
If technically feasible, disrupting SPSs
microwave or laser transmission beam, either
by interfering directly with the beam or its
pilot signals, or by changing its position so that
it misses its receiving antenna, would be a
highly effective way to attack the SPS. Since
the effects would be temporary and reversible,
such an attack might be favored in crisis situations short of all-out war. Disruption using
metallic chaff would be ineffective against a
microwave beam, due to its very large area.
Laser beams could be temporarily deflected by
clouds of small particles or by organic compounds that absorb energy at the appropriate
frequency. Electronic interference possibilities
83-316 0 - 81 - 12
170
lent uses involve satellites in low and high orbits for communications and data transmission, weather reporting, remote surveillance of
foreign territory and the high seas, and interception of foreign communications. The crucial character of these satellites, especially in
providing information on strategic missile
placements and launches, is such that any
future war between superpowers will undoubtedly include actions in space to destroy
or damage enemy satelIites. 73
For these reasons both the United States and
the U.S.S.R. are working to develop antisatellite (A-sat) weapons. The Soviets have in the
past tested killer satellites c a p a b l e o f
rendezvousing with objects in orbit and exploding on command. 75 The United States
has not yet tested A-sat weapons in space but
is developing a sophisticated orbital interceptor designed to be launched from an F-15
fighter. Neither system is capable of reaching
geosynchronous
satelIites
without being
placed on larger boosters, but such development is probably only a matter of time.
The United States and U.S.S.R. have held informal talks in the past on limiting or banning
A-sat weapons; the most recent such discussion took place in June 1979. These talks have
been complicated by Soviet claims that the
Space ShuttIe is an A-sat system. The talks are
currently on hold.
An outgrowth of A-sat concern has been the
rapidly increasing interest, on both sides, in
laser and particle-beam weapons. Although
some have predicted that such weapons couId
be deployed within a few years (especially
lasers, whose technology is more advanced
73
Clarence Robinson, Space-Based Systems Stressed, Aviation Week and Space Technology, Mar. 3, 1980, p. 25.
74Soviet Space Programs 1977-1975, VOI 1, staff report for Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 1976, pp. 424-429.
75
Craig Covault, New Soviet Antisatellite Mission, Aviation
Week and Space Technology, Apr. 28,1980, p. 20,
Craig Covault, Antisatellite Weapon Design Advances,
Aviation Week and Space Technology, June 16, 1980, pp.
243-247
77
See articles in Aviation Week and Space Technology of July
28, 1980; also Richard Burt, Experts Believe Laser Weapons
Could Transform Warfare in 80s, New York Times, Feb. 10,
1980, p. 1.
military would have the further option of flying manned or unmanned missions.
Since the key requirement for directedenergy weapons is a large power supply, any
SPS that generates electricity directly [i.e., any
design except the mirror-system) can be used
to power such weapons. These weapons could
be built into the SPS platform or placed at a
distance in lower orbits and supplied by lasers
from the SPS. The question is whether relatively small directed-energy weapons can be
designed with autonomous power supplies,
perhaps from nuclear reactors. Since weapons
used against ICBMs must be capable of firing a
large number of very rapid bursts in order to
engage a fleet of 1,000 or more missiles, it may
be that SPS power, if available, would be the
most efficient and economical way to supply
future laser or particle-beam platforms.
Direct use of the SPS in this way would of
course make attack in time of war inevitable.
Extensive defensive armament would have to
174
FOREIGN INTEREST
Interest in SPS has been expressed outside of
the United States, especially in Europe but also
in J apan, the Soviet Union, and some developing countries.
Europe
In general, the European studies have focused on the European requirements for possible contributions to an SPS system. Little
K. K, Reinhartz, An Overview of European SPS Activities,
in Firra/ Proceedings of the SPS Program Review, U.S. Department
of Energy, July 1980, pp. 78-88.
80J. Ruth and W. Westphal, Study on European Aspects of
SPS, ESA report No CP(P) 1266.
A. R. Bresters, Study on Infrastructure Considerations for
Microwave Energy G round Receiving Station, Hydronamic Project, p, 495, November 1980
*In Jerry Grey, The Internationalization of Space, Astronautics and Aeronautics, February 1979, p 76
83
See Peter Glaser, Highlights of the International Symposium on Solar Power Satellites, July 1980,
Soviet Union
The Soviets have initiated no major known
studies of SPS, though there have been unverified claims of a Soviet SPS project. It is impossible to tell with certainty what the degree
of interest or expertise is; U.S. experts feel the
Soviets are relying on Western reports and are
far from developing the launchers, microwave
transmission expertise, and advanced solar
cells necessary to consider an SPS. 86 R e c e n t
signs of interest include a paper entitled
Satellite Power Stations published by scientists from M.V. Lomonosov State University,
M o s c o w i n D e c e m b e r 1 9 7 7 .8 7 88 At the 30th
Congress of the IAF in Munich, September
1979, the Solar Power Bulletin reported that:
Although the Soviets were reluctant to disclose their level of commitment to a solar
power satellite program, Chief Cosmonaut
Beregovoy commented that if the United
States puts up an SPS first, we will congratulate you, and if ours goes up first, we will
expect congratulations from you. 89
Conversation with Jerry Grey, of the Al AA, Oct. 15,1980.
K K Relnhartz, op cit., p 80
Conversations with James Oberg, Johnson Space Center,
and Charle\ Sheldon I I, Congressional Research Service, September 1980
5ovlet fpace Programs 1971-/975, VOI 1, staff report, Library
of ( ongres~, 1976, p 529
See statement of Peter Claser In House Hearings on SPS, 96th
Cong , March 1979, p 218
5pace \o/ar Power Bu//etin, Sunsat Energy Council, February
1980, p 1
Japan
The Japanese have expressed interest and
funded studies within the National Space Development Agency, though no permanent office for SPS exists. Japanese interest in space
exploration and industrialization is strong and
includes plans for several new series of
Launchers. go
Third World
Information about SPS has been spread to
the Third World by discussions at COPUOS
James Harford, Japan Showcases Crowing Space Prowess,
Astronautics and Aeronautics, December 1980, pp. 120-125.
175
and by sessions on SPS at international conferences such as those of the IAF. Reaction has
generally been cautiously optimistic. At the International Symposium in Toulouse, Dr. Mayur
of Indias Futurology Commission claimed:
There is no conflict between small scale
technologies and the SPS. Dr. Chatel, former
Chief of the UNs Office of Science & Technology, proposed an international working
party to coordinate national programs and perform assessments. The SPS has been placed
on the agenda of the upcoming U.N. energy
conference in Nairobi in the summer of 1981.
Glaser, o p c i t
STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
It is crucial to continue updating long-term
projections as new information becomes available about developments in the space and
energy fields. Close attention should be paid
to: 1 ) future global electricity demand under
various scenarios and on a detailed regional
basis; 2) evaluation of the impact that possible
external events wars, oiI embargoes, widespread famine couId have on U.S. and European energy needs; 3) the feasibility of a
unilateral SPS System given a global market,
including estimates of profitabiIity; 4) monitoring of Law of the Sea negotiations and the resulting international regime with special attention to the implications for the Moon Treaty
and other space agreements; and 5) weapons
Chapter 8
Contents
Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
....179
Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...182
Power Transmission Effects on the
Atmosphere and Weather ...182
Atmosphere
.
.
.
.
.
.183
Space Vehicle Effects.. . . . ..187
Electromagnetic Interference . ......190
Terrestrial Activities. . .......196
Receiver Structure: Weather
Modification . . . . . . . . .. ....205
Health and Ecology . . . . . . . . ........207
Terrestrial Effects . . . . . ........207
ionizing and Nonionizing Radiation
Defined. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........209
Space
Environment.
.
.
..
....221
42 M i c r o w a v e E x p o s u r e L i m i t s .
43 Research Needs To Help Reduce
Uncertainties Concerning Public
Health Effects Associated With
.212
.213
Densities and Frequency. .
.217
SPS Development . . . .
Estimated Sound Levels of HLLV
launch
Noise
.
.
. .220
Representative Noise Levels Due to
Various Sources . . . . . . . . .220
Community Reaction to HLLV Launch
Noise~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .221
Sonic
Boom
Summary.
.
.221
Types of Radiation Found in the
Different SPS Orbits . . . . . . . . . . . . .223
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Page
30. R e g i o n s o f t h e A t m o s p h e r e . . . . . 1 8 3
31. Examples of SPS Microwave
Transmission Effects on the
Ionosphere and Telecommunication
Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
32. Summary of SPS Atmospheric Effects, .188
3 3. Receptor Site Protection Radius as a
Function of the Perimeter laser PowerDensity Level. . , . . . . . . . . .197
34. Microwave Power Density at Rectenna
as a Function of Distance From
Boresight. . . . . . , . . . , . . .197
35. Rettenna/Washington, D.C. Overlay. . .198
36. Offshore Summary Map . . . . . . . . .200
37. Satellite Power System Societal
Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201
38. Regional Generation and
Rectenna Allocations . . . . . .202
39. The Electromagnetic-Photon Spectrum, 209
40. SPS Microwave Power-Density
Characteristics at a Rectenna Site. .. ..211
41. Comparison of Exposure Standards . .. 216
42. Program Funding. . . . . . . . . . . .216
43. Factors Pertinent to Space Worker
Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 222
Chapter 8
J R Gasper, a n d C D B r o w n , Hea/th and Safetv Pre/lrnlrtary Cor-nparatlve Assessment of the Sate//ite Power
$vstem / SPS) and Other Energy Alternatives, DOE/NASA report
No DO I IF R-0053, April 1980
CI t Newsom and T D Wolsko, Pre/irnfnary C o m p a r a t i v e AsSCJS smen t o t Land Use for Satellite Power Systems and A Iternatl .te
F /ectrlc
t nergy
Technologies,
DOE/NASA report No
[ )OE I R-0058, April 1980
D A Kellermeyer, C/imate and Energy: A Comparative Assessment of the SPS and Other Energy A /ternatives, DOE/NASA report
No DO} F R-0500, January 1980
F P L e v i n e , M J Senew, and R R Clr[llo, C o m p a r a t i v e
Assessment of Environmental Welfare Issues Associated With the
\ate//lte Power System and Alternative Technologies, DOE/NASA
r e p o r t ho [)OE/E R - 0 0 5 5 , A p r i l 1 9 8 0
5Envlronmenta/ Assessment for the Sate//ite Power System Concept Development and Evacuation Program, DOE/NASA report
No DOt /E R-0069, August 1980
Comrnlttee o n S a t e l l i t e P o w e r S y s t e m s , N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h
( ounc!l O p e n
Committee
Meetings
Jan
31-Feb
1,
1980,
Apr
780
referred to the DOE documents for more detailed discussions. While those studies have
not identified any environmental reasons not
to continue with SPS development, it is very
evident that much more study and research
(continued from p. 179)
Ing Effects of Long-Term, Low-Level, 2450 MHY Radiation on
P e e p / e , o r g a n i z e d by the National Re\ear( h (-ouncil, C o m m i t t e e
o n Satel I Ite P o w e r
Environmental
Power transmission
Microwave
Public health
and safety
impact
Occupatlonal health
and safety
bEffects of low-level
Higher risk than for
public; protective
chronic exposure to microclothing required for
waves are unknown
terrestrial worker
Psychological effects of
microwave beam as weapon Accidental exposure to
high-intensity beam in
Adverse esthetic effects
space potentially severe
on appearance of night sky
but no data
terrestrial communications,
radar, radio, and optical
astronomy
Lasers
Mirrors
Ocular hazard?
Psychological effects of
laser as weapon are
possible
Adverse esthetic effects
on appearance of night
sky are possible
bTropospheric heating
could modify weather
Ecosystem: effect of 24hr light on growing
cycles of plants and circadian rhythms of animals
bpotential interference
with optical astronomy
Ocular hazard?
Psychological effect of
24-hr sunlight
Adverse esthetic e f f e c t s
on appearance of night
sky are possible
Ocular hazard?
Transportation and
space operation
Launch and recovery
HLLV
PLV
COTV
181
System component
characteristics
Environmental impact
Mining
Land disturbance
(stripmining, etc.)
Measurable increase of
air and water polIution
Solid waste generation
Strain on production
capacity of gallium
arsenide, sapphire, silicon,
graphite fiber, tungsten,
and mercury
Manufacturing
Measurable increase of
air and water pollution
Solid wastes
Construct ion
Measurable land
disturbance
Measurable local increase
of air and water pollution
Receiving antenna
High-voltage
transmission lines
(not unique to SPS)
POTV
Occupational health
and safety
construction accidents
psychological stress,
acceleration
Terrestrial workers
hazards: noise, transportation accidents
Terrestrial activities
defined
Measurable increase of
air and water pollution
Solid wastes
Exposure to toxic
materials
Measurable land
disturbance
Measurable local increase
of air and water pollution
..
bLand use reduced
property value, esthetics,
vulnerability (less land
for solid-state, laser
options; more for reference
and mirrors)
b
EM fieldseffects
uncertain
Noise
Measurable local
increase of air and water
pollution
Accidents
Waste heat
b Exposure to high
intensity EM fields
effects uncertain
and do not account for offshore rece!vers or possible mitigating sYStem rnodificatlons
182
Laser system
Laser bioeffects
. Tropospheric heating
Launch
effluents
Land use
Mirror system
Weather
modification
Land use
Biological
and psychological effects of 24-hr light
Systems comparisons
SOLi~~E Of~c;of Technology Assessment
ENVIRONMENT
One of the consequences of constructing
and operating an energy system in space is that
the extent of the environment that is directly
affected by the system is much broader than
for Earth-based powerplants. For example,
both the transmission of SPS power and the injection of launch effluents will directly affect
every layer of the atmosphere. The purpose of
this section is to discuss the state of knowledge
of the predominant environmental impacts of
SPS, especially those that are fairly unconventional and to outline areas where further research would be needed. Biological effects,
i.e., human health and safety and ecological
impacts, are deferred to the second part of the
chapter.
The two major environmental concerns at
the present time are: 1 ) the effect on the atmosphere of the transportation and power
transmission systems; and 2) electromagnetic
interference with communications systems
and astronomy. 8 With respect to the former,
the effluents emitted from the launch vehicles
8Program Assessment Report, Statement of Findings, Satellite
Power Systems Concept Development and Evaluation Program,
DOE/NASA report No DO E/E R-0085, November 1980
183
100
10
Satellite Power
Systems Concept Development and Evaluation Program, DOE/NASA
November 1980
Report,
mosphere. While attenuation of the microwave beam by clouds and rain in the troposphere could cause a slight modification of
cloud dynamics and precipitation, 9 a b s o r p t i o n
F-region
ion
SOURCE:
Prograrn Assessment Report, Statement of Findngs, Satellite Power Systems Concept Development and Evaluation Program, DOE/NASA Report, DOE/ER-0085, November 1980
communication systems tested. Some researchers have even suggested that the proposed power density of 23 mW/cm 2 could be
doubled without significant impact to telecommunications in the lower ionosphere.
However, more research is needed in order to
determine the power density threshold in the
lower ionosphere, and for this the power density of the existing heating facilities will have to
be increased. Additional study is also required
to ascertain the effects in the lower ionosphere
on telecommunication systems that operate at
frequencies greater than 3 MHz (i.e., 3 to 100
MHz) range. In addition the effects of multiple
microwave beams need to be determined.
Our knowledge of upper ionosphere (F region) heating is less advanced than in the D & E
regions. Few underdense experiments (i. e., the
beam travels through the region as opposed to
being reflected, which is termed an overdense
condition) to simulate SPS heating have been
attempted. Recent experiments 2 suggest that
ionospheric irregularities can be created when
the Platteville heater operates in an underdense mode and that these irregularities induce scintillations in very high frequency satelIite-to-aircraft and satellite-to-ground transmission links. Further work would be required,
however, to establish whether scintillations
would occur if SPS heated the upper ionoPresently, t h e t h e o r e t i c a l s c a l i n g
sphere.
models that would extrapolate these results to
SPS conditions in the F-region are very uncer-
Gordon
and
Duncan,
Reviews
of
Space
S C I-
and
185
tain. In order to test these theories, the groundbased heating facilities will have to be upgraded
In sum, it appears that effects on telecommunications in the lower ionosphere would
probably be negligible, but more study of the
upper ionosphere effects is needed. By making
the heating facilities more powerful, the following research can be conducted:
Upper ionosphere: refine and verify Fregion scaling laws and ionospheric physics and then test effects on representative
telecommunications systems for SPS
equivalent heating.
Lasers
The most significant potential environmental effects associated with the SPS laser system
appear to be local meteorological changes and
beam spreading due to tropospheric heating.
Heating
Power Satellite,
and
Possible
Ceophysica/
83-316 0 - 81 - 13
Implications
for
the
Solar
R e s e a r c h L e t t e r s , VOI 7, No 8,
186
Technical
R o c k w e l l I n t e r n a t i o n a l r e p o r t N o SSD
80-0119-1
ing the water from aerosol droplets. After passing through the beam, the cloud fog would
recondense. Portions of noctilucent clouds in
the mesosphere might also be vaporized. The
possible environmental consequences, such as
alteration of the continental cloud distribution
or albedo, would be slight but research would
stiII be needed.
Preliminary analysis indicates that the potential impacts in other atmospheric regions
would be negligible. 18 I n t h e s t r a t o s p h e r e ,
ozone would not be affected for wavelengths
greater than 1 micron. Possible perturbations
of the plasma chemistry by the laser beam in
the mesosphere and thermosphere are believed to be small and inconsequential, since
the interactions would be confined to the laser
beam volume; ionospheric heating would also
be negligible. However, research would be
needed in order to validate this conclusion.
In the near term, environmental studies
could concentrate on the following areas:
understanding and refine models; investigate enhancement of thermal blooming by clouds; study transmission and thermal blooming as a function of laser frequency, time of year, and receptor altitude and location.
Induced cloudsstudy the extent and
consequences of induced clouding.
Reflected Light
The mirror system would reflect about 0.8
k W / m 2 of light to Earth, somewhat less than
the illumination due to the Sun. 2 0 The primary
atmospheric effect of this additional light
would be tropospheric heating. Coupled with
the sensible heat release at the energy conversion site, the weather might be measurably
modified as convection, cloud formation, and
.
t Li Wa Ibrlclge, La$er %te//lte
f>ower ~y$tem~, A r g o n n e N a -
W P G Ilbreatll,
and S W
Ibid
Slbld
[bid
Ibid.
Bowen,
World
Energy,
Solar
In
Revisited, F P
187
weather modeling and large-scale computations applicable to large mirror system size,
the effects of dichroic mirrors on the systems environmental impacts, and
possible ground-based experiments to
simulate mirror system heating.
K BII I m a n , W P G Ilbreath, S W Howen, S o l a r t ner,gy Revlslted W Ith Orbit Ing Ref Iector$, N A 5A, A me\
f311 I man, private commun Icatlon
BII I man, G Ilbreath, and Bowen, S o l a r
Op (-It
E n e r g y F conom I( ~,
- 1+1 I In)(i
188
Alteration of
satellite environment
Alteration of plasmaspheric
and magnetospheric
populations and dynamics
LEO to GEO
Orbit transfer
people carrier> chemicals
cargo carrier > ions
The major space vehicle impacts of the reference system are identified in table 33. Presently, the greatest uncertainties are associated
with four potential effects 27 (treated in more
detail in app. D):
I n the magnetosphere, the emission of
ions from COTVS and POTVS would substantially increase the ambient concentrations of these particles. Because of our
poor understanding of the complex dynamics and composition of this region,
potential impacts can be identified, but
the likelihood and severity of these effects are highly uncertain. Possible effects
include enhancement of Van AlIen belt radiation and changes in magnetospheric
and plasm aspheric dynamics that could
perturb ionospheric electricity, tropospheric weather, and satellite c o m m u n i cat ions.
Ionospheric
depletion
o
SOURCE:
Pro~r,]m
As~e\\ment
Function
Transport
material
between Earth
and LEO
Transport
personnel
between Earth
and LEO
Transport
materials
between LEO
and GEO
Transport
personnel
between LEO
and GEO
Propellants
Launches b
per year
Operating
altitude (km)
Main exhaust
products c
375
375
375
0-57
57-120
450-500
C 02 , H2 0
H 2 0, H2
H 2 0, H2
30
0-500
CH4/O2 (stage 1)
H 2/02 (stage 2)
H2 /O 2 (circularization/deorbit)
Details not
available
(probably same
as HLLV)
Argon
H 2 / 02
H 2 / 02
30
500-35,800
Ar+ plasma
H 2O, H2
12
500-35,800
H 2O, H2
.
%HJOZ: liquid methanelliquid oxygen
HJOZ: liquid hydrogenlliquid oxygen.
bAssuming construction of two (silicon option) 5-Gw satelliteslyear.
CCOZ: carbon dioxide
HzO: water
H,: hydrogen
Ar + : argon ion.
SOURCE:
C 2 , H2 0, H2
Environmental Assessment for the Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program, DOE/ER-0069, August 1980,
Ch. 8Environment
Atmospheric
region
Troposphere
0-0.5
0.5-13
13-50
50-80
80-125
LEO d
LEO
GEO d
477-GE0
Stratosphere
Mesosphere
Thermosphere
Exosphere
Source
HLLV, PLV
HLLV, PLV
HLLV, PLV
HLLV, PLV
HLLV, PLV
HLLV, PLV
POTV
POTV
COTV e
Total
mass
(t) c
6502850
3027
758
2031
33
460
153
985
co
117
513
546
90
H 2O
260
1140
1210
450
1960
443
443
147
0
H2
13
57
61
19
71
1
11
6
0
Ar +
985 f
bpLV emissions would be ~hemi~all~ similar t. those of the l+LLV, but are not Otherwise determined at ttlls time. The numbers shown are emissions Of the HLLV OIIiy
amount of energy into this altitude range. Also ar90tl pla.sllla el19illeS
would be used for satellite attitude control and stationkeeping control at GEO; these em Isslons are unknown at present and have not been included.
fAr+ mass for the silicon Photovoltalc cell option For the gallium aluminum arsenide Opt!on, the Ar+ mass Would be 212 t.
SOURCE:
Environmental Assessment for theSatell)te Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program,
DOEIER-0069, August 1980.
The injection of rocket exhaust, particularly water vapor, into the ionosphere
could lead to the depletion of large areas
of the ionosphere. These ionospheric
holes could degrade telecommunication
systems. While the uncertainties are
greatest for the lower ionosphere, experiments are needed to test more adequately telecommunications impacts and
to improve the theoretical understanding
interact ions
of
chemical-eIectricaI
throughout the ionosphere.
Troposphere
Ground
cloud nuclei and heat could have a measurable
effect on weather
N O emissions are small compared to typical powerplant,
but in conjunction with ambient concentration could exceed projected EPA standards
X
Large increase
Research priorities.
790
terns, In
Aklns,
Optlmlzation o f
Electromagnetic
Interference
$ate//lte
a n d Eco-
non)l{ \ c o n t r a c t o r report p r e p a r e d f o r O T A , N o v 1 4 , 1 9 7 9
microprocessors. SPS systems using microwaves for power transmission would generate
the greatest potential interference because
communications systems and passive receivers
of alI sorts share this portion of the spectrum,
as well as other electronic equipment (e. g.,
computers, control devices, sensors) that are
susceptible to microwave energy. The reference system is designed to transmit at 2.45
GHz, the center of the Industrial, Scientific,
and Medical band (ISM).
This analysis focuses on the affected users
on an area-by-area basis. It is based on the
presumed characteristics of the three transmission options of table 34. However, it should be
emphasized, that the precise characteristics of
the transmission beams are as uncertain as
other details of the proposed alternative systems. Not only are the characteristics of the
systems and their components poorly known,
the theory is inadequate to extend known data
to other frequencies, angles, or distances.
Nevertheless, it is possible in most cases to indicate broadly the sources of potential interference and their effects on other users of
the spectrum.
Potential Affected Users of
the Electromagnetic Spectrum
SPACE COMMUNICATIONS
All artificial Earth satellites use some portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, either
for communication, remote-sensing or telemetering data. All would be affected in some
way by the SPS.
Geostationary
satellites. These would be
most strongly affected by the microwave systems. They would experience microwave interference from the fundamental SPS frequency
(e.g., 2.45 GHz for the reference design) and
noise side bands, spurious emissions in nearby
bands, harmonics of the fundamental SPS frequency, and from so-called intermodulation
products. All radio frequency transmitters generate harmonics and minor spurious components in addition to the desired signals. The
unintentional outputs are fiItered to satisfy national and international regulations about
191
users.
compatibility with other spectrum
Receivers also generally include sufficient filtering to prevent degradation by the residual
undesired signals. However, the magnitude of
the power level at the central frequency and in
harmonic frequencies for a microwave SPS
would be so great that the possibility of degrading the performance of CEO and LEO satellite receivers is significant. Examples of serious interference include the 2.50 to 2.69 GHz
direct broadcast satellite band, the 7.3 to 7.45
GHz space-Earth government frequency slot,
and the S-band National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) space communications channel.
I n addition to the direct effects from microwave power transmissions, geostationary communications satellites may experience multipath interference from geostationary power
satelIites due to the latters sheer size. I n some
cases, microwave signals traveling in a straight
Iine between two communications satellites
wouId experience interference from the same
signal reflected from the surface of the power
satelIite lying between them. Communications
satelIite uplink channels would be degraded by
multi path interference from the SPS vehicle
during orbit periods when the SPS is at a lower
aItitude than the adjacent communications
satelIites.
These adverse effects would necessitate a
limit on the spacing that a geostationary satellite must have from a power satellite in order
to operate effectively. The minimum necessary
spacing would depend directly on the physical
design of the satellite, the wavelength at which
it operates, the type of transmission device
used (i.e., klystron, magnetron, solid-state
device), and the satellite antenna sidelobe
magnitudes, transmitted power, orbit perturbations, and intermodulation product frequency
distribution and amplitudes.
Because a microwave SPS as currently configured must share the geostationary orbit with
other satellites, the value of the minimum
John
Juroshek,
T h e SPS I n t e r f e r e n c e
Problem
Elec-
411-438
192
Affected systems
Spectral region
Mechanism/effect
Microwave
Microwave
Power
radiation at central
frequency (2.45 GHz or some
other choice)
M u I i path interference
Infrared
Thermal
radiation from
all satellite components
Terrestrial
LEO satellites
Radio astonomy receivers
Deep
GEO
Radio
GEO
Radio
GEO
space communications
satellites
astonomy receivers
satellites
astronomy receivers
satellites
All wavelengths
(reflected sunlight)
Diffuse
reflections
Specular reflections
Glints
Optical telescopes
Laser
Microwave
No discernible
effect
Infrared
Central beam radiation
. Thermal radiation from all
components
All wavelengths
(reflected sun/ight)
Diffuse
reflections
Glints
None
Infrared receivers near
terrestrial receiver
Radio astonomy receivers
Optical telescopes
Probably no effect
Mirrors
Microwave
No
discernible effect
Infrared
Thermal
radiation from all
components
All wavelengths
(reflected radiation)
Specular
reflection to
terrestrial station
Diffuse reflection
None
Radio astronomy receivers
minimum spacing with any accuracy. Estimates range from 0 to 10 . 31 The lower Iimit
would probably be acceptable. However, a
minimum spacing much greater than 10 would,
result in too few available geostationary slots
to allow both types of users to share the orbit
over the continental United States.
In 1980, some 80 civilian satellites shared
the geostationary orbit worldwide, and by 1990
that number is expected to increase substantially. Even though improvements in technology will lead to a reduction in the total number
of satellites necessary to carry the same
volume of telecommunications services, total
service demand is expected to rise dramatically. At present the minimum spacing for
domestic geostationary satellites is 40 in the
6/4 GHz communication band and 30 in the
14/12 GHz band. At these spacings, a total of
90 6/4 GHz band satellites and 120 14/12 GHz
band satellites could theoretically coexist at
geostationary altitudes, in the absence of SPS.
Additional satellites could use other frequency
bands without interfering with the above satellites, though this would ultimately be limited
by the station-keeping capability of the various satelIites. Multiple use platforms represent
one possible option to reduce contention over
orbital spaces.
The laser and mirror systems in LEO would
not interfere substantially with geostationary
satellites. Even in the unlikely event that such
a satellite were to pass precisely between a
geostationary satellite and its ground station,
the time of passage as well as the apparent size
of the occluding power satellite would be so
small as to cause only a slight diminution of
the signal.
N T I A p u b l i c a t i o n (In pres$)
193
W H Grant, E 1 M o r r i s o n , J r
Impa[ t of SPS O p e r a t i o n s
and
Davis,
T h e EMC
The
Program Review,
o n I.ow E a r t h O r b i t S a t e l l i t e s ,
4284 W
794
TERRESTRIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AND ELECTRONICS
Both civilian and military terrestrial telecommunications and electronic equipment
wouId suffer from a number of possible effects
of a microwave beam. Direct interference can
occur from the central frequency and harmonic emissions. In addition, scattered and
reflected radiation from the rectenna and
structure intermoduIation
products could
cause additional interference problems for terrestrial receivers. At the very least, rectennas
would have to be located far enough from critical sites such as airports, nuclear powerplants,
and miIitary bases to render potential interference as small as possible. In addition, most
equipment would have to be modified to per-
Stokes, Work$hop o n
Effects on Optical
and
Radio
S a t e l l i t e
Astronomy,
Optical astronorny. For the reference system, diffuse reflections from the satellite
structures would cause the greatest degradation for terrestrial telescopes. Because
they appear to remain stationary along the
celestial Equator, reflected Iight from a system of 15 to 60 satellites would meld together to block observation of faint objects
over a large portion of the sky near the
Equator for telescopes located between the
longitude limits of the satellites. Some
major foreign, as well as most domestic observatories would be affected. Observations
of bright objects would be possible, but degraded in quality. In addition, reflected light
from the LEO construction base could be expected to interfere with observations of
faint sources in its vicinity. Telescopes in
orbit, such as the U.S. Space Telescope, to
be launched in 1984, will travel in nonequatorial orbits and therefore would not be
affected significantly by a reference system
SPS. The danger of pointing directly at a
geostationary satellite will increase the complexity of the telescope-pointing mechanism. Astronomical photometry and spectrometry instrumentation, and high resolution telescope tracking systems would be
degraded if located within 50 to 60 km of a
rectenna site. The EMC evaluation program
indicated the necessity of improving sensor
and sensitive circuit shielding, and maintaining a minimum separation distance of 50
to 60 km between rectenna sites and telescopes using sensitive electronics to remove
SPS induced degradation.
The effect of diffuse reflections from a
laser SPS in LEO could be expected to cause
fewer problems for observations of diffuse
objects near the Equator because the laser
collection and transmission satellite would
be constantly in motion. Thus, no part of the
196
Terrestrial Activities
The terrestrial environment would be affected by SPS in a number of ways. The construction and operation of receivers could
alter local weather, land use, and air and water
quality. The mining, manufacturing, and transportation associated with SPS could also
adversely affect the environment. 37
majority
receiver
of
sites
remarks
made
a s specif]ed b y t h e t e c h n i c a l s y s t e m s ad-
IS
Important
to
note,
however
of
the
t h a t offproblems
197
2.45 GHz
50
23 mW/cm2
10
5
1.0
Mapping of
Power
DOE/NASA
Report
HCP/
.01
Figure 33. Receptor Site Protection Radius as a
Function of the Perimeter Laser Power-Density Level
.005
10
.001
o
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
Ground radius, m
SOURCE Satellite Power System, Concept Development and Evaluation Program, reference system report, DOE/ER-0023, October 1978.
10
1 0 - 3
10
10-
10
10
Power Systems
ReportLaser Environmental
Laser
vol.
198
Washington , D C
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
Some of the environmental, societal and institutional problems associated with land-use
and receiver siting might be remedied by siting
receivers in shallow offshore waters. For some
land-scarce areas such as New England and
Europe, this concept is particularly desirable.
.
4
J Freeman, et al , So/ar
NAS 8-33023,
SPS system
Reference . . . . . . . . . . .
Solid statec . . . . . . . . . . .
Laser Id. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Laser Ilf . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mirror If . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
For comparison
Washington. . . . . . . . . . .
New York City. . . . . . . . .
Chicago. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
k m /site
km /1,000MW
Number of
sites for
300,000 MW
174.0
50.0
0.6
40.0
1,000.0
35.0
33.0
1.2
80.0
7.4
60
180
600
600
- 29
m 2/MW-yr a
1,280
1,230
44-35 e
2,960-3,550 e
274-329 e
174.0
950.0
518.0
a These nlt~ are presented for ~O~ParlSOn with table 36, The values for the reference and solid-state designs assufrle a so-year lif@tirne and a capacity factor Of ().9.
b Rectenna at 34o latitude covers a $jkrn x lskrll (1 ITkrnt) elliptical area, Microwave power density of edge of rectenna is 1.0 mW/cm2. If an exclusion boundary iS Set at
0.1 mW/cm2, then the total land per site is approximately 174 kmz (2 km extra on each side for buffer zone). J. B. Blackburn, Sate//ire Power System (SPS) Mapping of
Exc/usion Areas for Rectenrra Sites, DOE/NASA report No. HCP/R-4024-10, October 1978, Does not include land for mining or fuel transport.
C The solid-state sandwich design is described in J Grey, safe//j~e power sys~em ~ecffrrjca/ op~lo~s and Economics, contractor report prepared fOr OTA, NCrV, 14, 1979.
d Laser 1 and Laser 11 are two laser systems considered by DOE, Both deliver the same amount of power but the beam of Laser I iS more narrow (and hence more intenSe)
than that of Laser Il. See C. Bain, Potentia/ of Laser for SPS Power Transmission, SPS CDEP, October 1978.
e The values for the laser and mirror systems assume a 30-year lifetime and Capacity faCtOrs of 0.75-09
f Minor system parameters are defined by SOLARES System as described in K. Blllman, W P Gllbreath, S. W. Bowen, Solar Energy Revisited With Orbiting
Reflectors, NASA, Ames,
g The SO LARES system is designed to deliver 810 GVV to 6 sites; 2 SOLARES sites actually ~)rovlde 270 GW,
199
Construction
Plant
CG/CC
Quantity
Fuel
Disposal
Transmission
7.2-150 m21MW-yr
5 m21MW-yr
30 yr
c
1,800-4,520
m2/MW-yr
30 yr
c
300 m21MW-yr
(480 km)b
30 yr
c
Duration
Location
c
c
FBC
Quantity
5.2-16.8 m2/MW-yr
1.4 m2/MW-yr
Duration
Location
c
c
30 yr
c
c
c
c
c
L WR
Quantity
57-174 m2/MW-yr
31 m2/MW-yr
4 m2/MW-yr
Duration
30 yr
1 06 years
Location
30-40 yrs
(20 m2/MW-yr
permanent)
c
225-1000
m 2/MW-yr
(480-1600 km) b
30-40 yrs
LMFBR
Quantity
76-133 m2/MW-yr
200 m2/MW-yr
(80 km)b
Duration
Location
c
c
30 yr
c
5 m2/MW-yr
(plant lifetime) and
.25 m2/MW-yr
(permanent)
c
c
c
c
30 yr
c
c
c
300 m2/MW-yr
(assume same as
combined cycle)
30 yr
c
.
TPV
Quantity
Duration
Location
neg 1d
neg 1d
300-3,000
m2/MW-yr
(480-4,800 km)b
c
c
600-3,800 m /MW-yr
(depending on cell
efficiency and
capacity factor)
30 yr
Southwest
N Ae
NA
N Ae
NA
30 yr
c
STE
Quantity
2,260-6,650 m2/MW-yr
neg1 d
neg1 d
Duration
Location
c
c
30 yr
Southwest
NA
NA
NA
NA
300-3,000
m2/MW-yr
480-4,800 km)b
30 yr
c
OTEC
Quantity
neg1
neg1 d
neg1
Duration
Location
c
c
N Ae
N Ae
N Ae
NA
20-850 km2
(launch)
1,480 m21MW-yr g
(rectenna) f
neg1 d
neg1 d
30 yr
Florida?
30 yr
c
N Ae
NA
NA e
NA
SPS
Quantity
Duration
Location
A
NA
300 m2/MW-yr
(480 km)b
30 yr
c
300-1,000
m2/MW-yr
(480-1,600 km)b
30 yr
c
N A-Not applicable
flncludes buffer zone, rectenna proper OcCIJpleS about 501. Of total.
9Assuflles 200 krnz per rectenna site.
Negligible.
SOURCE: D. E. Newsom and T. D. Wolsko, Prelirnmary Cornparatwe Assessment of
DOE/NASA report No. DOE/ER-0058, April 1980.
Land Use ~Or Satelhte Power Systems and Altemafive E/ecmc Energy Technologies,
200
Offshore siting study - dark areas are not eligible for rectenna siting
SOURCE:
and B A
Satellite Power System
Proceedings of the
Siting Study, in
Power
Program Review, Apr 22-25, 1980, DOE/NASA
report No Conf -800491, July 1 9 8 0
of
Atomic Energy Commission lands, and unacceptable topography. Sites were also excluded
if they were found within a specified distance
from military installations, nuclear powerplants and other facilities that might suffer
from electromagnetic interference with the
SPS microwave field.
In figure 37, ineligible grids were marked
with an x. In this first exercise 40 percent of
the United States remained eligible. After the
application of additional potential exclusion variables that were categorized as having
an unknown or adverse, but potentially correctable impact (e. g., agricultural lands and
flyways of migratory waterfowl), 17 percent of
the United States remained eligible. In general,
the greatest number of eligible sites was found
in the West, Southwest, and in the northern
regions of the Midwest; the least number of eligible sites occurred in the Mid-Atlantic States,
where 3 to 10 percent of the land was eligible
(31 to 83 grids, depending on the criteria for
eligibility). The exclusion variables that had
the greatest incremental effect in rendering
land ineligible included topography, popula-
and
squares. By imposing the constraint that eligible sites had to fall within a 3 x 3 grid pattern,
the amount of eligible sites dropped dramatically, especialIy in the Mid-Atlantic region and
the Southeast. A less restrictive requirements
of 2 x 2 grid patterns produces a considerably
less drastic result.
The siting results (from the application of
absolute variables) were then correlated
with the distribution of projected electrical
d e m a n d . 46 Based on one projection of future
electricity demand, it was concluded that the
only potential site scarcity would occur in the
Mid-Atlantic region (see fig. 38). In most other
regions there wouId be about 100 times more
eligible grids than required sites. Scarcity of
large load centers relative to allocated rectennas could be a problem in sections of the Midwest and West.
A prototype environmental assessment was
conducted for a rectenna site in the California
desert (Rose Valley, 250-km north of Los
A
83-316 0 - 81 - 14
Relationship
of
Eligible
Areas
to
Projected
202
18.40/o
600
Note: This
is based on the EIA Leap Series C (1978) protection of electricity the year 2000 which assumes a 4 10/.
growth rate per year from 1977-1995. See chapter VI or discussion on alternative electricity growth rates
SOURCE. A.
of
Proceed/rigs
Demand,
No conf -800491, July 1980
Noise
Substantially elevated
noise levels, but in
areas with low population density,
Possible impacts on
noise-sensitive
species.
. No significant impact.
Rectenna operation
Rectenna construction
. Probable standards
violation for nitrogen
oxides, particulate,
and hydrocarbons.
No
climatic impacts.
Project requirements:
2-14 x 106 m 3
(depends on dust
suppression methods
used).
Meeting
project needs
from groundwater
would lower water
table 0.2-1.5 m/yr;
would reduce underflow to adjoining
valley, could lower
water level in nearby
lake; might contaminate usable water
through hydraulic connection with unusable
ground water.
Mitigation
Adequate dust suppression
program during construction
would mitigate particulate
impacts.
. Extending construction
schedule would reduce
emission peaks for hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Pending further research,
project modifications might
be needed for ground surface microclimate impact
204
Land disturbance
would completely
modify sites
floral communities.
Possible indirect
impacts on flora from
hydrologic changes,
air and water
pollutants, and
personnel activities
No
endangered
species present
at Rose Valley/
Coso; one rare
species present.
Flora
Fauna
Land use
Impacts similar to
construction phase.
Microclimate
changes at
ground surface a key
issue for severity
and potential for
mitigation of floral
impacts.
Impacts similar to
construction phase.
Impacts closely
related to fIora
impacts.
Microclimate changes
at ground surface
a key issue for
severity and potential
for mitigation of
fauna impacts.
Land disturbance
would completely
modify site faunal
communities.
Possible indirect
impacts on fauna
from hydrologic
changes, air and
pollutants, personnel
activities, and loss
of feeding areas
for nearby fauna.
Surface water
sources for
migratory water
and land birds
would be lost
(Playas) and
jeopardized (Little
Lake).
One protected species
(Mohave ground
squirrel) found in Rose
Valley.
Total
Same as construction
phase
displacement
of existing site
uses (e. g.,
farming grazing,
recreation).
Minor loss of
mineral resources
(cinder, pumice).
Minor indirect
(growth-related
impacts.
Potential land
acquisitior/use
conflicts with Navy
(China Lake NWC),
energy (geothermal),
wilderness,
archaeological
resources, native
American use and
access to cultural
and religious sites.
Mitigation
Rectenna operation
Rectenna construction
Reestablishment of
preexisting fIora
problematic; major
and difficult revegetation
program required.
Careful placement of
ancillary facilities necessary
to minimize impacts
on sensitive habitats.
Careful
planning,
design and construction/
operations practices
necessary to minimize
indirect impacts (e.g.,
water quality degradation).
Reestablishment of
preexisting fauna
problematic; closely
linked to strategy
and success of
floral mitigation.
Careful placement of
ancillary facilities
needed to minimize
impacts on sensitive
habitats.
Careful planning,
design, construction,
O&M practices, and
construction scheduling
needed to avoid
indirect impacts
and to avoid
sensitive habitats
during breeding and
nesting seasons.
SOURCE: Prototype Environmental Assessment of the Impacts of Siting and Constructing a Satellite Power System (SPS) Ground Receiving Station (GRS), DOEINASA
report No. DOE/ER-0072, August 1980.
205
Other DOE studies have investigated the potential of the rectenna for modifying local
weather. They indicate that the surface roughness and albedo of the rectenna structure and
the waste heat generated by rectenna operation (750 MW per site) would have a small, but
detectable impact on regional weather and clim a t e . 4 8 4 9 In particular, rectennas would perturb the average surface heat exchange by
about 10 percent. SPS land-use changes could
alter temperature (on the order of 10 C), cloud
density and rainfall. However, it is important
to note that these effects would be no greater
than those attributable to other nonindustrial
urban activities. For example, the waste heat
generated by typical coal and nuclear plants
range from 750 to 6,000 MW. The waste heat
rejected at laser receptor sites, would also produce weather effects that would be less signifi-
48
Environrnerrta/ Assessment for the Sate//ite Power System
Concept Development and Evaluation Program, op cit.
Proceedings of the Workshop on Meteorological Effects of Satellite Power System Rectenna Operation and Related Microwave
Transmission Prob/ems, Aug 23-25, 1978, DOE/NASA report No
Conf -7808114, December 1979
Resources
Parameter
Percent
supplied as
byproduct
Threshold valuea . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 0 %
Gallium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A
Graphite fiber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sapphire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Silicon SEG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gallium arsenide. . . . . . . . . . . .
Electricity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Arsenic/arsenic trioxide. . . . . .
B
Kapton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Oxygen (Iiq) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Silica fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Silver. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B
Silver ore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Glass, borosilicate . . . . . . . . . .
Hydrogen (Iiq) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mercury ore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Petroleum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tungsten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
World
production
growth
rate
10%
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
SPS
percent of
demand
100/0
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
Net
percent
imported
Percent
world
resource
consumption
cost
$Ikw
50%
B
B
B
B
200%
$50/kw
A
A
A
A
B
B
where an A or B is recorded.
Prelimlrrary Materials Assessment for ttre Satellite Power System (SPS), DOEINASA report No. DOE/ER-0038, January 1980.
206
Particulate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sulfur dioxide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Carbon monoxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hydrocarbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nitrogen dioxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonrecoverable waterd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Solid
wastee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.8%
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.005
0.24
0.70
Land requirementsf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.12
aBaSed on ~~ earl Ier SPS cJeSlgrl assumes two satellites and rectennas are built
~~%~e~rlnlng, processing and fabrication
C
U. S totals In 1973
dEor ~ropellant manufacture, launch pad COatln9, Coflstructlon.
eFrOM dun-tin urn and steel processes.
fFor ,eCtenna Sites as fraction of tc)td us. kind area
SOURCE Adapted from Env/ronmenta/ Assessment for the Sate///te Power
System Concept Development and Evaluation Program, D O E / E R 0069 August 1980
207
Terrestrial Effects
The primary sources of potential health and
ecological effects are electromagnetic radiation from the power transmission and distribution systems and noise and pollution from
launches, mining, manufacturing, and construction (see table 40). The risks to the terrestrial worker are usually greater than to the
general public because of the increased frequency, duration, and intensity of occupational exposure to certain hazards (although
occupational exposure could be more easily
controlled by protective devices). Estimates of
SPS hazards have in many cases been extrapolated from other technologies, such as the
space shuttle. Risk analysis would improve as
the system design becomes more clear. However, the major uncertainties associated with
some effects (e. g., electromagnetic radiation)
rest in the state of biophysical knowledge and
not SPS specifications.
208
Electromagnetic Radiation
Microwaves
Effects of public and ecosystem exposure to low levels
uncertain
Occupational
exposure higher; may require protective
clothing
Laser Light
Hazard to people and other living organisms directly ex
posed to beam
Hazard to slow airplanes, birds, and insects flying
through the beams
Air Pollution
Without preventative measures, construction of rectennas couId violate standards for certain emissions such as
hydrocarbons and particulate
Mining, manufacturing, and transport emissions are expected to be comparable to industrial and energy producing processes (except coal)
Launch
effluents are not thought to exceed emissions
standards unless ambient levels are high but studies
must be refined
Effects on ecosystems are unclear
Water Pollution
Construction
and revegetation could deplete or contaminate local water, depending on site
Onsite
facilities would be needed to treat polluted water
at launch site
Safety
Risks to public, workers, and ecosystems from the handling and transport of toxic and explosive materials such
as rocket propellants
Occupational risk of catastrophic explosion or launch accident higher than that for public and ecosystems
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
SPS would increase the local levels of nonionizing radiation (see fig. 39) in a few areas of
the spectrum, e.g., microwaves, infrared laser
light, or reflected sunlight from the powertransmission system .54 The distribution of
power from the receiving site via transmission
lines would also increase exposure to very low
frequency or static field radiation at some
locations. Light reflected from the surfaces of
space structures and vehicles would be visible
from Earth. Space workers involved in the construction and operation of SPS could also be
exposed to high levels of nonionizing and
ionizing radiation in space.
MICROWAVES
There is not enough relevant data currently
available to assess reliably the biological risks
to humans, plants, and animals exposed to SPS
microwaves. The data base that does exist is incomplete, often contradictory and usually not
d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e t o S P S .55 I n p a r t i c u l a r ,
Bolometer
Sparks
Lamps
Thermopile
Hot bodies
Magnetron
Klystron
Crystal
Travelling-wave
tube
Electronic
circuits
Electronic
circuits
AC generators
209
SPS microwave risks. The SPS reference system microwave environment is illustrated in
figure 40. Table 41 presents the public, occupational, and ecosystem exposure levels.
Since the power densities emitted by the
solid-state system are lower as a function of
distance from the rectenna center than the
reference system, they will not be specificalIy addressed here.
.
lbld
R A Tell and E D Mantiply,
56prOgram
A Ssessment Report,
Statement of
F;nd;ws,
Population
Exposure
to
VHF
Power denisity is
rectenna center
0.02 mW/cm2
10 km
13 km
at 35@
0.1 mW/cm2 at rectenna
site exclusion boundary
SOURCE: Enwrorrnrenta/
August 1980
Assessment for the Sate///te Power System Concept Development and Eva/uat/on
Program, DOE/ER-0069,
Public
Terrestrial
workers
Rectenna field
Space workers
Ecosystems (plants,
wildlife, airborne
biota)
Under
rectenna
Transmitting antenna
Rectenna field:
Outside buffer
Inside buffer
Rectenna field: above
rectenna
SOURCE: Environment/ Assessment for the Sate//ite Power System Concept Development and Eva/uat/on Program, DOE/ER-0069, August 1980.
212
United States . . . . . . . . . . .
U. S.S.R.b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Canada C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Czechoslovakia . . . . . . . . . .
Poland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sweden d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.01-100
0.3-300
1-300
0.3-300
0.3-300
0.3-300
Occupational (mW/cm2)
10.0
0.01
5.0
0.01
0.2
1.0
aThi~ is a ~uid~li~ ~nlY and is Ot ~nf~~C.abl~; the ~tarldard~ i the united Kingdom, German Federal
Occupational duration
Public (mW/cm2)
No limit
Workshift
8 hours
8 hours
10 hours
8 hours
None
0.001
1.0
0.0001
0.01
1.0
guideline; ANSI will probably recommend 5 mWlcm2 as a new occupational exposure limit. ANSI and EPA are presently considering a new population limit.
bo,l mwlcmz for rotating antennas.
ccanada is proposing a 1 ITrw/cITIz limit at 10 tdHz to 1 GHz requency.
d5 mwlcm~ at o.01 to 0.3 GHz for 8 hours.
SOURCE: Adapted from L. David, A Study of Federal Microwave Standards, DOEINASA report No. DOEIER-1OO41-O2, August 1980.
Table 43.Research Needs To Help Reduce Uncertainties Concerning Public Health Effects Associated With
Exposure to SPS Microwave Power Densities and Frequency
Better dosimetry techniques for calculating and measuring (such as a probe that could be used within an
organism to measure in a nonperturbing way) internal
field patterns.
Interactions with drugs or other chemicals
Long-term dose-response experiments at power densities around 0.1 mW/cm 2 and with a larger number of
drugs at whole body, organ, and organelle levels.
Immunological effects
SOURCE: C H. Dodge, (rapporteur), Workshop on Mechanisms Under/y/ng Effects of Long-Term Low-Level, 2.450 MHZ Rad/at/on on Peep/e, organized by the National
Research Council, Committee on Satelllte Power Systems, Environmental Studies Board. National Academy of Sciences, July 15.17, 1980
species. It may also be possible that frequencies other than 2.45 GHz would be used for
SPS. If a much different frequency were used,
however, low-level microwave research would
have to be done at that frequency as well,
because different frequencies cause different
responses,
In addition to laboratory experiments, epidemiological studies are also needed. 64 It has
been argued that such studies are currently of
limited usefulness; they are very expensive, difficult to accurately document (i.e., it is difficult to determine the dose to which individuals are exposed) and may overlook important
biological endpoints. 65 In addition they have
Office of Science and Technology Policy, A Technica/ /7eview of the Biological Effects of Non-lonlzlng Radiation, W a s h ington, D C , May 15, 1978
65paul Tyler, Armed Forces R a d i o l o g i c a l
private
communication,
Research
Institute,
preach the projected time scale of SPS operation (i.e., 30 to 100 years). With respect to SPS,
it must be determined if animals and airborne
biota would be attracted to the beam or would
avoid it. What impact would microwaves have
on the navigational systems of birds and insects (as well as aquatic life for offshore
rectennas)? What effect would exposure to
microwaves have on the productivity of plants
and their susceptibility to drought? How would
SPS affect the local food chain? The effects on
micro-organisms, such as bacteria, fungi, and
algae should be invest igated. 66
Microwave standards. The biological consequences of exposure to low-level microwaves are poorly understood because of
inadequate and sporadic support of microwave bioeffects research in general and
because the bulk of research performed in
this country has focused on the bioeffects at
levels of 10 mW/cm 2 or greater. 67 This emphasis stemmed from a belief that the only
biologically significant damage from exposure to microwaves is due to heating. In
fact, occupational guidelines developed in
the 1950s through the Department of Defense and its contractors in response to concerns about exposure of radar personnel
were based on biological injuries (e. g.,
cataracts, burns) from acute exposure to
microwaves on the order of 100 mW/cm 2. It
was concluded that humans could well tolerate exposures to power densities 10 times
smalIer 68 (i. e., 10 mW/cm 2) without suffering
serious or permanent damage. 69 This reasoning was accepted by the American Standards
Association (now the American National
..
G a n d h i , Blohazarcf~ ot M i c r o w a v e Beams F r o m Prc~-
0 P
f nergy Tccfrno/oKlc\,
n 1 ~ea /th
/rnp/lcatlon$ of New
ommun~catfon~
() rnW/cm
)
Kane, T h e
Kadlatlon,
215
The discussion o f l o w - l e v e l e f f e c t s i s
hampered by the experimental difficulties of
isolating the various possible mechanisms.
Most U.S. microwave experts acknowledge the
need for research on low-level effects, but remain skeptical about their biological significance, especially at the proposed SPS single
frequency of continuous radiation.
For many years the flow of information between East European and Western researchers
was restricted. Translation problems sometimes also contributed to misunderstandings. 83
This situation has improved considerably, and
attempts are being made in the United States
to replicate many of the low-level experiments
performed in other countries (although the
United States still has not sponsored any
clinical studies). Western literature is also
beginning to acknowledge the possibility of
behavioral response and selective sensitivity
of organs to low levels .84 Partly for these
reasons, it is anticipated that new ANSI guidelines will be established that are more stringent
than the present exposure levels (see fig. 41). At
the SPS frequency of 2.45 GH Z , the maximum
occupational exposure that is now being considered is 5 mW/cm2. * EPA is also considering
.
C H Dodge and Z R Glaser, Biomedical Aspects of Radio
Frequency and Microwave Radlatlon A Review of Selected Soviet, East F u ropean, and Western References I n Bio/ogica/ Effects
of E Iectromagnetic Waves: .Se/ected Papers of the USNC/URSl
Annual/ Meeting, L L Johnson and M Shore (eds ), Boulder,
COIO , October 1975, USDHEW, (report No (FDA) 77-8010/8011),
Washington, D C 1976
[1 Mlchaelson, In Symposium on the Bio/ogica/ Effects and
Health /mp/lcations of Microwave Radiation, S Cleary (ed ),
RI( hn~ond, 1969, USDHEW, report No BRH/DBE 70-2, 1970, pp
76-81
Frzemyslaw Czerskl, Department of Genetics, National Resear( h I nstltute of Mother and C h ild (Poland), private commu n icatlon Sept 5, 1979
C H Dodge and Z R Claser, Trends In Non-ionizing Electromdgnetlc Radlatlon Bioeffects Research and Related Occupational Health Aspects, Iournal of Microwave Power, VOI 12,
No ~ 1977, Pp 319-334
*Thl\ level has been criticized by the National Resources
Defense Councrl as being arbitrary and not found with any
recognition of possible nonthermal effects, see ch, 9, Pub/ic
/5 $11(?>
216
10
,00
FY-77
$7.6 M
FY-78
$10.1 M
Tyler, op cit
217
Exploratory development . . . . . . . . . .
Technology development . . . . . . . . . .
Engineering development. . . . . . . . . .
Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Commercialization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Microwave aspect
Agency involvement
. . .. . .. - . . . . - .
- EPA, HEW/FDA, NASA
E n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d p u b l i c h e a l t h e f f e c t s DOE,
evaluation MPTS technology
Conduct experiments and further define
DOE, NASA, HEW/FDA, Department of
health and safety risks of MPTS to
Labor/OSHA EPA
public, the environment and SPS
workers
Preliminary standards development
HEW/FDA, DO E/EV, EPA, HEW/FDA,
radiation exposure standards
Bureau of Radiological Health, Department
occupational health and safety
of Labor/OSHA
standards development
Final standards for MPTS chosen
HEW/FDA, DOE/EV, EPA, DOL/OSHA
occupational health and safety
standards finalization
Preparation of environmental impact
Council on Environmental Quality
Guidelines for health and safety
Department of Labor/OSHA
(worker) enforcement
Guidelines for public health and safety
HEW/FDA-Bureau of Radiological Health,
environmental impact statements
EPA, Council on Environmental Quality
Review guidelines for worker
Department of Labor/OSHA
health and safety
Review guidelines for public health
HEW/FDA, EPA
and safety
Enforcement of guidelines for
Department of Labor/OSHA
worker health and safety
Enforcement of regulations for
EPA
public health and safety
Department of Labor/OSHA
Enforcement of guidelines for worker
health and safety
Enforcement of guidelines for public
EPA
health and safety
SOURCE: L. David, A Study of Federa/ M/crowave Standards, DOE/NASA report No DOE/ER-10041 .02, August 1980.
83-316 0 - 81 - 15
Beverly, op clt
[3 H Sllney, K W Vorpahl, a n d D C Wlnburn, Envlronnlenta I H ea Ith Hazards From H lgh-Powered I nfra red Laser DeV I <-e $ \rch Envlronmenta/ Ffea/th, VOI 30, April 1975, pp
174170
W~lhrldge,
lhl(i
op clt
219
The ecological impacts have not been assessed. It is known that the polarization, frequency and intensity of light as well as the
percentage of daylight hours influence the
behavior, navigation, and lifecycle of many
species of wildlife and vegetation; many
species have inherent biological clocks or circadian rhythms that are triggered by the diurn a l a n d s e a s o n a l v a r i a t i o n s o f s u n l i g h t .9 9
However, ecosystems in the area surrounding
the receiver site would be exposed to low
levels of incremental sunlight and so it does
not appear Iikely that significant biological ef97
-800491, ) uly
1980
affected by the reflected light, ecosystem effects are largely uncertain. More research
would be needed to investigate how alterations of the day and night sky could influence
behavior, navigation, and Iifecycles of wildlife
and vegetation.
Noise
Noise is generated during rocket launches
and the construction of receiving stations.
With respect to the latter, the highest n o i s e
levels w o u l d r e s u l t f r o m h e a v y e q u i p m e n t
used to prepare the site and build the support
structure. The DOE prototype siting study concluded that it would be unlikely that significant noise-related impacts on the public and
most animals located 2 km or more from the
prototype construction site would occur. 0 2
For some machinery, occupational noise
standards would be exceeded. Mitigation
measures include ear protection devices, mufflers for machinery, and special insulation in
factories.
Very high noise levels would be associated
with launch vehicles during ascent and reentry.
Table 45 presents the estimated noise produced by the HLLV. Table 46 is exhibited for
comparison. A preliminary assessment indicates that the OHSA standard of 115 db(A)
would be exceeded within 1,500 m of the
launch pad, and the EPA guideline violated
within 3,000 m. 103 Using the Kennedy Space
Center as a prototype launch site, the study
) Protot ype Envlronmenta/ Assessment of the /mpacts of $Irlrrg
and Construct~ng a Sate//fte Power $ y~rem ( SP$) Ground /7ecelvIrrg Stat Ion (C RS), op c It
JEnvlronmenta/
Assessment for the \ate//lte Power System
Concept Development and Eva/uat/on Pro#ram, op clt
SOURCE Errv/ronrnenfa/
concluded that launch noise wouId not interfere significantly with speech (interruption for
2 minutes at 30 km twice a day), but that interference with sleep could occur 30 km from the
site Table 47 presents an estimate of the
number of people annoyed by the noise as a
function of distance. Sonic booms would also
be generated; pressure levels are shown for
HLLVs and PLVs in table 48. The HLLV sonic
booms would not cause injury but would invoke gross body movements and might interfere with sleep. It has been suggested that the
trajectories of launch vehicles should avoid
population areas.
The effects of noise on wildlife include startle responses and disruption of diurnal and
reproductive cycles that could be particularly
significant in endangered species habitats. It
has been suggested that wildlife would adapt
to the noise, but this is not clear. 04 While the
noise generated by the space shuttle is not expected to be serious, the effects of HLLVs
wouId be greater because of the increased fre
. .
Ibid
300 m
149
130
12
1,500 m
136
114
42
3,000 m
130
105
54
9,000 m
120
89
77
30,000 m
109
72
77
=
aOASPL: overall sound pressure level expressed In decibels (db) above the level corresponding to a reference pressure of 20 pa (pa= Pascal 1 N/m )
bA-ievei: Weighted average sound level over the frequency spectrum In accordance with the Performance of the human ear
SOURCE: Env/ronmenta/
Assessment for the Sate//lte Power System Concept Deve/opmerrf dftd Eva/uat/on Program, DOE/ER-0069, August 1980
300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
90
45
24
5
1
Vehicle
Launch
Reentry
1 ,200
HLLV orbiter . . . . . . .
PLV booster. . . . . . . .
PLV orbiter. . . . . . . . .
770
190
140
140
70
HLLV
booster
Other Risks
Quantitative studies are needed to determine SPS impacts on air and water quality and
the generation of solid wastes. It is currently
assumed that these impacts would be comparable to typical industries and powerplants (except coal) and that unusually high risks would
not be encountered by the public and terrestrial workers that could not be minimized or
corrected. )() The effects on ecosystems are
less certain.
DOE has concluded that acid rain from the
SPS launch ground cloud would be localized,
temporary and minimal. Because of the consequences of ozone depletion, i.e., a l-percent
)lbld
hlbld
Space Environment
Many space workers would be needed to
construct and maintain an SPS system. The
reference design, for example, requires 18,000
person-years in space; 112 workers would serve
ten 90-day tours over 5 years. Other SPS designs may have different personnel requirements, but they will not be specifically ad)} Hamer, Ozone Controversy, Editor/a/ Research Reports,
VOI 1, No 11, 1976
l bl[i
l bld
)1 bid
Ibid
Program Assessment Report, Statement of Findings, op clt
considered, the health and safety of space personnel should be a high-priority research task,
The principal health and safety risks of the
space segment of SPS are illustrated in figure
43. Effects on the general health and safety of
space workers such as acceleration and
weightlessness are discussed in appendix D.
The most serious potential health risk of the
space environment is exposure to ionizing radiation. The types of radiation found in the
different SPS orbits are listed in table 49.
Exposure to radiation in CEO and in transit
between LEO and CEO are of most concern
because, under the reference system scenario,
workers spend approximately 91 percent of
ce debris
eoroids
Transport
accidents
accidents
Construction
accidents
o
Space debris
Life
failure
p
Transport accidents
transport accidents
acceleration/deceleration
Satelltte Power Systems ;oncept Development and Evaluation Program, DOE/NASA report No
their time in the higher orbit where the radiation environment is the most severe. 115 In GEO,
except under the unusual circumstance of a
large solar flare, the major part of the radiation dose in the reference system would be due
to bremsstrahlung produced by the interaction
of high-energy electrons with the shielding
material. The biological effects of this kind of
radiation are reasonably well understood, and
innovative shielding might reduce this dose.
However, r a d i a t i o n f r o m t h e h i g h - e n e r g y ,
heavy ions (HZE) in galactic cosmic rays cannot be stopped by conventional shielding and
their biological effects are currently very
poorly understood. F r o m t h e o r e t i c a l c o n siderations and preliminary experiments it appears that they may be much more effective in
causing biological damage than other types of
ionizing particles. Thus, though they contribute a small fraction of the total radiation
dose in the reference system, they are of major
concern with regard to the health of space
w o r k e r s . 116
ionizing Radiation Risks to Satellite Power Systems [SPS)
Workers, LBL-9866, November 1980, advance copy
1M R White, Environmental Assessment for the Satellite
Power System, Non-Microwave Health and Ecological Effects,
DOE, in press (1981)
223
7M~rgaret R White, L a w r e n c e B e r k e l e y L a b o r a t o r y , p r i v a t e
224
tional exposure l i m i t s ( f o r b l o o d t e r m i n g
organs) are 3 reins for 90 days and 5 reins over
1 y e a r ;1 2 4 a n d t h e N A S m a x i m u m r e c o m mended exposure limit (for bone marrow) for
astronauts is 35 reins for 90 days, 75 reins over
l-year period and 400 reins for Iife. 125 If space
worker careers were 5 years, with 90 days in
space alternated with 90 days on Earth, it
would be expected that for each 10,000
workers in space, between 320 to 2,000 additional cancer deaths in excess of normal cancer mortality would occur. 126 An issue critical
to SPS design and economics is whether the
radiation standards developed for astronauts
should be applied to SPS workers. 127
Risks could be reduced in a number of ways.
For example, the time per tour and the number
of tours per worker could be decreased. Robots and teleoperation could be used to reduce the number of people required in space.
It is also essential that accurate, quick and
rugged dosimeters be developed that monitor
the real-time radiation flux and energy levels
t o w h i c h e a c h i n d i v i d u a l i s e x p o s e d .128 i n struments would also have to be developed to
warn personnel in GEO of solar storms or other
unforeseen high radiation events so that they
can move to shelters. Considerable improvements in dosimeter technology are needed
since present devices are not very accurate
and take a long time to display radiation
levels. Shielding is also crucial Some of the
24
W Schimmerling and S Curtis (eds ), Workshop on the Radiation Environment of the Satellite Power System (SPS], Sept 15,
1978, DOE, Conf -7809164, December 1979
1251b;d
2Whke, Environment/ Assessment for the Sate//ite power
System, Non-Microwave Health and Ecological Effects, op cit
*Program Assessment Report, Statement of Findings, op cit
2 Environmental Assessment for the Satellite Power System
Concept Development and Evacuation Program, op clt
Chapter 9
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
Contents
Page
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Financing, Ownership, and Control .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Space and Energy Sectors . . . .
227
.., . . . . . . . . .
Government-Private Sector Relat ons
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 229
Phases of SPS Development. . .
.230
.
.
.
.
.
Possible Models . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
. 23.5
The Implications for the Utility Industry
.
.
. 235
I n t r o d u c t i o n
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 235
The Utilities Planning Process.
239
Engineering Implications of the SPS for the Utilities Grid . . .
243
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Regulatory Implications of SPS
. . .
245
. . . .
General Implications for the SPS
.
.
.
...
247
Issues Arising in the Public Arena
.
.
.
.
.
. 247
The
SPS
Debate
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . 258
Siting . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLES
Page
Table No.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
50. Characteristics of the SPS System
51.
Major
Grid
Contingencies
.
.
.237
52. Potential for Power Variations From the Reference System SPS . . . .241
53. Major Issues Arising in SPS Debate
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
54. Potential Benefits and Drawbacks of SPS Technical Options . . . 259
FIG U RE
Figure No,
Page
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Chapter 9
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
FINANCING, OWNERSHIP, AND CONTROL
The questions of who would finance, own,
and control a solar power satelIite (SPS), and to
what extent, are interrelated. As a project that
would involve the Nations space and energy
sectors, as well as several Government agencies, there are numerous issues to be considered regarding the proper allocation of risks
and responsibilities. The following discussion
will examine: 1 ) current policy and structure of
the space and energy sectors; 2) the relation
between Government and private-sector activities; 3) the importance of distinguishing between the different phases of SPS development and operation; and 4) possible historical
and hypothetical models for an SPS project.
Energy
EIectricity is provided by public and private
utilities, which are regional monopolies regulated by State authorities. R&D and construction of generating equipmentturbines, nuclear reactors, switching gear is done by private firms, who sell to utilities. The utilities
operate and maintain equipment, build transmission lines, and market electricity to endusers Due to severe capital constraints and a
lack of expertise in space operations, utilities
are unlikely to own and operate SPS in the way
they currently do with other types of powerplants, though they may well be responsible
for the ground-receivers. In the case of SPS,
there is a question as to who would carry out
these various activities,
Although energy production in the United
States has traditionally been handled in a
decentralized manner by private industry, increased sensitivity to the importance of energy
issues since the 1973 oil embargo has led to
various attempts at formulating a national
energy policy, centered in the newly created
Department of Energy (DOE). DOEs scope and
responsibilities in areas such as basic research
and engineering have yet to be determined;
funding is being provided for projects in
photovoltaics, conservation, nuclear power,
synfuels, and other areas. DOE can be expected to have a prime role in any SPS project.
227
228
ments. Uncertainty, whether technical, political, or economic wilI deter potential investors.
The incentives required to spur any private
interest would in themselves involve drawbacks. A company taking a major risk on SPS
would expect to be compensated by exclusive
patents and other guarantees, in effect with a
monopoly. Government regulation would have
to take risks into account by allowing a very
high rate of return, i.e., allowing the owners to
charge high rates for SPS electricity. A private
prices
monopoly
above-average
charging
could prove to be politically embarrassing.
An SPS system will require a great deal of
political support both locally, nationally, and
internationally: land-use conflicts, monopoly
considerations, environmental standards, tax
incentives, and radio frequency allocations are
a few of the political issues that SPS will need
to confront. Private development and ownership may be seen as leading to an excessive
concentration of power outside effective public control
Difficulties With Federal Involvement
Any large long-term project, public or private, dealing with advanced technology may
suffer from financial and management problems: lack of coordination between parts of
the program; inadequate supervision of contractors; financial and production bottlenecks
in specific areas that delay other parts of the
program; inaccurate initial estimates of costs
and completion times, and so on. However,
Government programs often have special constraints that need to be taken into account.
Without a profit motive and the discipline of
responsibility to owners and stockholders,
there is less incentive to reduce costs. Civil
service regulations can interfere with hiring
and firing and limit salary ranges, decreasing
flexibility and making it difficult to retain personnel Annual Government funding produces
uncertainties and leaves programs vulnerable
to political pressures and pork-barrel compromises. Government-funded R&D in the public domain requires special supervision, since
without the incentive of exclusive rights to
patents and processes, firms doing research
229
230
emphasis on booster and LEO to CEO transport development for its use (see ch. 7),
perhaps affecting launcher design or the allocation of program funds. NASA may wish to
emphasize and prolong the R&D phase. Annual budget review may increase costs by creating uncertainty and requiring project managers to spend large amounts of time drawing
up and justifying annual budgets.
operates specific faciIities (on a cost-reimbursable basis) for research and launches.
Possible Models
Perhaps the best way to further examine
possible financing and management scenarios
is through historical and hypothetical models
that might be applicable to SPS. In each instance there are several questions to be asked:
1) Is it complete: can this model support an
SPS program from start to finish, or is it applicable only to certain phases or components?
2) How are risks apportioned: who pays, and
who reaps the benefits of a successful project?
3] How efficient and flexible is it: can it adapt
to changing economic and technical circumstances, and can it attract support from a
variety of sources, particularly foreign investors?
Historical Models
NASA
NASA is an
independent
Government
agency with a general mandate to engage in
R&D and testing and to conduct launches for
civilian space activities. Although NASA has in
the past centered its efforts on high-visibility
manned projects, s u c h a s A p o l l o a n d t h e
Space Shuttle, it has also conducted major
programs
in telecommunications, remotesensing, and the sciences, such as the Viking
and Voyager interplanetary probes.
NASA is funded by general tax revenues appropriated annually by Congress. NASA funds
are overwhelmingly90 to 95 percent spent
on outside contracts with private firms, research centers, and other Government agencies, foreign as well as domestic. NASA itself
helps to set priorities and policies, oversees
and coordinates contractor performance, and
232
line and diesel fuel, transport users have contributed in proportion to their total transportation expenditure. An additional tax on
heavy commercial trucks has ensured that
large users, who were responsible for a high
proportion of maintenance costs, would contribute appropriately. Unlike tolls or direct
fees for highway usage, revenue could be collected before the roads themselves were completed. An analogous tax to finance a fund for
SPS might be levied on current domestic and
commercial electricity consumption (though
from a strictly financial point of view the tax
need not be directly related to energy congumption. )
provides more assured and predictable funding than general revenue taxes that need to
be reallocated on a yearly basis. By taxing
electricity consumption the costs would be
borne by the future beneficiaries of SPS. If
desired, taxes on other forms of energy
could also be imposed; all energy taxes
would have the added benefit of encouraging conservation. As private investment was
found, the tax could be reduced, or revenues
couId be spent elsewhere.
The size of the tax, if levied on electricity
alone, would not have to be large to generate significant revenue. A tax of 2 mills/kWh
would produce over $4 billion per year (at
current consumption rates) while raising
consumer costs by less than 5 percent.4
Advantages. The Synfuels Corp. has the advantage of a discrete goal and timetable,
with maximum flexibility as to achievement.
The etmphasis on price and loan guarantees
to encourage rather than replace conventional financing arrangements should reduce the cost, assureing projects are successful. Direct Government control will be
avolded, unless no private ventures whatever are forthcoming.
1 9 H ( ) ill [{
COMSAT
Comsat was founded in 1962 as a federally
chartered corporation to establish and run
satellite communications (see ch. 7). Comsat
did not receive direct Federal funding, but was
given the fruits of extensive and continuing
NASA research on telecommunications satellites, 6 as well as the right to use NASA launch
services on a reimbursable basis (which does
not reflect R&D costs). The Government retained a measure of control through Comsats
operating charter and by appointing board
members, who were initialIy divided between
Government, communications common carriers, and private investors. Capital was raised
by issuing stock, which from the outset was
well-received by investors. As of 1979, Comsat
stock was held overwhelmingly by noncommon carriers; 3 of 15 Board members were
Presidential appointees, the rest being elected
by stockholders.
Advantages. A Comsat-styled SPS corporation would be independent of direct Government control and free to operate as a private, profitmaking corporation. Government
supervision would be provided without the
need for onerous restrictions. Comsat has
been highly successful internationally via its
participation in lntelsat, and a Solarsat
corporation might find it easier to engage in
international activities than would a Government agency. Such an organization could
inherit the results of Government-financed
R&D and engineering with less of a political
outcry than if control were to be turned over
to established private firms such as aerospace or oil companies; Comsat was established in large part to prevent AT&T from
gaining a satelIite communications monopoly.
Disadvantages. Issuing
common
stock
would not suffice to raise capital for the
early development stages. The transition
from Government to private funding would
N A S A c o m m u n i c a t i o n s r e s e a r c h was p h a s e d o u t u n d e r t h e
the
private
However, In 1 9 7 8 t h e C a r t e r admlnl~tratlon
reinstated NASAs leading role In communlcatlon> R&D, largely
to offset foreign government R&D effortj
technology
83-316 0 - 81 - 16
233
Vldr 1 ( I 1980, p 22
234
Hypothetical Models
In discussing possible SPS financing scenarios, some writers have proposed completely
novel methods with no historical precedent.
Foremost among them are the Taxpayer Stock
Corp., a new form of Government financing;
and a private approach, the staging company. 9
TAXPAYER STOCK CORP.
Under this method, taxpayers would receive
shares in a public corporation, financed by
general tax revenues, in proportion to the percent of taxes used to finance SPS. Shareholders
could then trade their shares on the market, as
with any other corporation. Those who did not
Conclusions
It is clear from the review of possible models
that there are many ways to finance the latter
stages of a successful SPS program, but that
(( onversatlon with Stephen Cheston, President, Institute for
the \oclal \clence Study of Space, December 1980
Gersovitz, p 36
236
The reference
system
characteristics
Solid-state sandwich
design
Laser system
(at
system
the
of.
Implementation
Start
of
Lifetime
of
rate
deployment.
each
Transmission
busbar)
.
...
...
...
capacity
Rectenna
size.
satellite
frequency
Designed
...
factor
.
...
.,
...
5,000 MW
300 GW
2 per year for
30 years
A.D. 2000
30 years
2.45 gigahertz
(i.e , microwave)
90 percent
10 km x 13 km at
35 Iat. plus 1 km
1,500 MW
Not projected
500 MW
Not projected
2010-2020
(estimate)
30 years
2.45 gigahertz
2010-2020
(estimate)
30 years
10 microns (infrared)
Mirror system
(baseline SOLARES)15
135 GW (10 GW
possible)
810 GW over 6
7
2010-2020
?
Reflected sunlight
I.e.,
90 percent
6.5 x 5.5kw at 35 Iat.
70-80 percent
(estimate)
continuous
spectrum
?
36 meter diameter
39-km
diameter
Thermal
Thermal,
plus 1 km buffer
buffer
Terrestrial
conversion
mode.
Microwave dipole
antenna-rectifier and
inverters
Maintenance,
satelIite
eclipses
(max. 21/2 hr
Microwave dipole
antenna-rectifier and
inverters
Maintenance, ecilpses
Of SatelIite? (max 2 h r
near equinoxes)
conversion
photovoltaic
conversion
During any thick cloud
cover, maintenance
near equinoxes)
1
237
The SPS is one among many new technologies that the utilities are considering in planning for the future. These include regiona/
technologies such as ocean thermal energy
conversion and geothermal; intermediate or
peaking technologies such as wind, solar thermal and solar photovoltaic without storage;
,~nd baseload possibilities such as advanced
coal, breeder reactors and fusion. I n addition,
~ome utilities are considering grid connected
dispersed technologies such as solar thermal,
solar photovoltaics, wind, and fuel cells. Planning for such a mixed bag of technologies is a
complicated and time-consuming process. As
figure 44 illustrates, the time from the initial
conception of a new technology to actual integration into the utilities grid can be extremely long up to 40 years or more. Not only must
utility suppliers develop the components of
the individual technology, they must make it
technological Iy and economical Iy attractive to
Ibl(j
238
1000
V) 100
G
s
10
1
10
30
20
40
Years
SOURCE: R L Rudman and C. Starr, 1978 R&D Plannlng for the Electric Utlllty
Industry, In Energy Techrro/ogy v G o v e r n m e n t I nstltutes, Inc ,
Washington
RESOURCE AVAILABILITY
Here, fossil or other depletable energy
s o u r c e s wil I suffer in competition with renewable sources such as wind-, solar-, fusion-,
or breeder-generated fissile material. Further,
because the Sun or wind are more available in
some regions of the country than in others, terrestrial renewable technologies wil I vary in
their attractiveness.
SYSTEM CAPABILITY AND FLEXIBILITY
1 bld
~ J Donalek
120 hr/yr of SPS power. Assuming maintenance could be scheduled during eclipse
periods, the total time the satellite would be
unavailable due to maintenance could be
considerably less than this.
Boeing 23 h a s s u m m a r i z e d t h e v a r i o u s
losses of power to which the referenced SPS
might be subject (table 52). Conspicuously
missing, however, i s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f
satellite equipment failure. It will be of considerable interest to everyone concerned to
identify as many potential sources of
unp/anned SPS shutdown as possible.
Other possible variations in the amount of
transmitted power have to do with the mech-
Power Reception, Transmission, and Distribution. At the rectenna, the power collec-
Table 52.PotentiaI for Power Variations From the Reference System SPS
Source of power
variation
Range
percent
Spacecraft maintenance
Eclipse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o-1oo
Total
Frequency of
occurrence
per year
2
62
0-1oo
Average
duration of
outage per
occurrence
minlyr .
2 X 3,600
3,376 total
71 maximum
per/occurrence
Average
Maximum yearly
Total
Time to
energy
power
maximum Scheduled
outage reduction
loss
hrlyr
GW hr power loss Yes No
GW
120
56.26
5
5
600
281.3
6 min
1 min
x
x
1 min
5 min
10 sec
30 min
100 ms
100 ms
lm
1s
Is
x
x
75-1oo
90-100
80-100
0.01
0.01
0.01
5,270
5,260
1,800
840
87.8
87.6
30
14
0.5
1
439
109.5
15
14
90-100
0.01
1,200
20
0.5
10
0.833
0.833
0.833
3.32
0.425
0.335
0.29
0.15
0.35
0.28
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.25
0.0005
0.06
0.0015
91.5-100
93.3-1oo
94.8-100
98.5-100
1
50
50
1
0.6
10
5,000
20
95-1oo
99.99-1oo
3
20 m
1 m maxi
occurrence
20
1,030.8(2.350/~)
1,188.5(2.71 %)
0.3
1.25
0.3 s
1s
x
x
x
x
x
x
Laser System
The laser system would present a different
set of challenges and opportunities for the
) h H a n I ev, op c It
243
energy or
used to
generate
electrical
perhaps, hydrogen. How it might be integrated
into existing uti I ities is unclear. As an electrical
system, it would require long transmission
lines leading from the energy parks to the
p o i n t of end use. However, hydrogen generated at the site could be transported by
vehicles to other destinations.
This concept appears to require a national
grid in order to make effective use of the large
generating capacity of the site (from 10 to 135
GW). Stability would be much less of a problem for SOLARE S than for the microwave system because of the large number of satellites
that would reflect sunlight, the inclusion of
storage in the system, and because of the independent blocks of ground-based photovoltalcs or solar thermal plants at the site.
The SO LARES proposal would be subject to
similar problems with clouds as the laser concept. However, the additional radiant energy
rnlght be great enough to dissipate clouds that
would form in the region. For this reason, large
mirrors have also been proposed for weather
mod i f I( at ion.27
Mirror System
Va)k, op clt
M Cer$ovltz, Report on Certain Economic Aspects of the
SP~ Energy Program, OTA Working Paper, SPS Assessment,
1980
244
have to change with increasing use of highcapacity generating units and greater grid interconnections. A move toward regional planning and control will likely also come about
because of the current disparity between
States in siting and other regulations, making it
more attractive for utilities to build in States
where regulations are not as stringent or to
purchase power from utilities that have a
surplus of generating capacity.
In order to regulate their processes, new regional regulatory agencies are likely to be set
up long before SPS could be part of the utility
grid, leading to greater grid interties. The int r o d u c t i o n o f a n SPS w o u l d u n d o u b t e d l y
hasten the process because the larger the grid,
the more easily outages from a single rectenna
or a laser receiver could be handled. The
intermediate-scale sol id-state system would fit
into this kind of structure easily, but a larger
scale SPS such as the reference system or
SOLARES would necessitate an even more
widespread system than is now envisioned.
Although the laser system might be used to
repower
inter mediate-s i zed
generating
facilities, t h e e v e r p r e s e n t p o s s i b i l i t y o f
massive cloud cover would require system interties in order to make the most efficient use
of the available laser satellites.
Site Decisions*
Siting would be a major issue for each one
of the alternative technologies and would also
require the development of regional cooperation. A major question in SPS siting decisions is
who would have the control; local, State,
regional, or national entities? Currently, State
or local regulatory boards make the ultimate
decisions concerning plant siting. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency review these decisions.
Except for Federal or State land, the planning
for a 174 km rectenna would likely involve
several local jurisdictions, one more of whose
land use regulations may not be compatible
with an SPS rectenna. However, if the need for
SPS power were great, there might be adequate reason to supercede local regulations in
*See also chs 8 and 9, pt C
Rate Structure
The magnitude of the capital investment
that SPS and other future technologies would
require wou Id certainly cause some alteration
of the utility rate structure. Just what form
these alterations might take is currently
unclear because they depend heavily on the
form that the SPS companies would take and
how they might be f inanced.
For example, if the utilities were to own ind i v i d u a l SPS plants, they would wish to include their capital costs during construction
(current work in progress) in the current rate
base. Most States are presently unwilling to
allow this. However, the extraordinarily high
capital costs of other sorts of new generating
capacity may make this scheme a necessity.
(In the other hand, if SPS power were to be
bought directly from an SPS corporation and
sold to the customer, the concern about adding capital costs during construction to the
rate structure would be eliminated for the util-
Market Penetration
From the point of view of the utilities that
would either purchase SPS generated power
for distribution in a grid or purchase receiver
installations to incorporate directly into their
own systems, the ultimate total volume of SPS
generated power would depend on a number
of factors in addition to cost. Even if the
busbar cost of SPS electricity was highly competitive with other future options, SPS market
penetration could be limited by reliability
requirements and by the technical difficulties
D Morris and J Furber, Decentralized Photovoltalcs OTA
Working Paper, SPS Assessment, 1980
246
P Vajk, The Military Impllcatlons of Satellite Power Systems NASA/DOE SPS Program Review Meeting, April 1980, Lincoln, Nebr
System Comparison
The most acceptable SPS option for the current utilities to pursue may be the solid-state or
a similarly sized microwave. It would provide
baseload power with minor weather interference at a scale more in keeping with current
uti I ity practice (i e., 1.5 GW). If future utility
systems develop the capability and the experience to handle larger increments of generating capacity, an SPS similar to the
reference system would be more acceptable,
though siting problems might be very great.
The laser and mirror concepts, though offering some interesting potential, suffer from
severe weather constraints. The possibility that
laser SPS could be used to repower fossil fuel
plant~ wou Id make it of particular interest in
regions of relatively low cloud cover. One of
the significant drawbacks of the mirror concept is that it wou Id require the utility and
overal I energy industry to make a radical
Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program Reference System Report, op clt
* Nuclear power actual Iy produce~ 13 percent of the electricity
sold
248
Interest Groups
A small number of public interest and professional organizations have expressed their
views on SPS. In general, many of the individuals and groups that support the development of SPS also advocate a vigorous space
program. SPS proponents, represented by organizations like the OMNI Foundation, view the
exploitation of space in general, and SPS in
Solar Power Satellite Public (lplnlon l~>ue~ Workshop, A
Summary, Feb 21-22, 1980, Office of Technology Assessment
Iblcf
C Hen$on, A Harlan, and T Bennett, Concern$ of the L-5
Society About SPS, The Final Proceedings oi the ~olar Power
%te//lte Pro~ram Review, Apr ,22-25, 1980, DOE, Cent-800491,
jUIV 1 9 8 0 p 542
5
Aerospace
I n d u s t r i e s A$soclatlon, S t a t e m e n t s u b m i t t e d f o r
the record In
So/ar Power 5ate//lte, hearings before the Subcomm Ittee on 5pace Sc Ience and Appl lcatlon~, U S House of Representatlve~, Mar 28-30, 1979, pp 241-242
P (; Iclwr, Solar Power Satelllte Development The Next
Steps, Apr 14, 1978, In So/ar Power Sate//lte, hearings before the
Sub( omrnlttee on Space Science and Appl lcatlon~, U S House
ot Reprewntdtlves, Apr 12-14, 1978, No 68, pp 165-178
1I Freeman (ed ) Space .So/ar Power f3u//etln, VOI 1, No 1 and
2, SLJNSA T [ nergy Council, 1980
So/,?r Power $ate//ltes, AlAA Posltlon Paper, Nov 29, 1978,
prepared by the AlAA Technical Committee on Aerospace Power
Svstem\, ,]nd the AlAA Technical Committee on Space Systems
<H Brown, Statement on Solar Power Satellite Research,
Development, and Evaluation Program Act of 1979, In So/ar
P~jwer i.~re//lres, hearings before the Subcommittee on Space
S( Ience dnd Appllcatlons, U S House of Representatives, Mar
28- W, 1979, No 15, pp 4-8
(l tlzen \ E n e r g y Project, S o l a r P o w e r Satelllte$ N e w s Upd]te, Solar Power Satellite Fact Sheet, Coal ltlon Against Satelllte
Power \y\tems S t a t e m e n t ( n e w s l e t t e r s ) , 1 9 8 0
~ [)(>[ O$S, Solar Power Satellite, Sun T/me\, July 1 9 7 9 , p p
4.5
G C)e L o s s , t e s t i m o n y In $o/ar P o w e r Sate//lte, h e a r i n g s
before the Subcommittee on Space Science and Appllcatlons,
U S House of Representatives, Mar 28-30, 1979, No 15, pp
109-114
Issues
The issues that repeatedly surface in the SPS
debate are shown in table 53. It should be
Citizens Energy Project, op. cit.
Solar Threat to Radioastronomy, New Scientist, Nov. 23,
1978, p. 590.
sPeter Boyce, Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Society, prwate communication
83-316 0 - 81
17
249
K Bossong and S. Denman, A Critique of Solar Power Satellite Technology, INSIGHT, March 1980
48Cltlzens Energy Pro}ect, op. cit
Solar Power Satellite: Public Opinion Issues Workshop, A
$urrtrriary, Feb 21-22, 1980, Office of Technology Assessment
250
cost
SPS
is likely to be cost competitive in the energy
market
Cost to taxpayer is for R&D only and accounts for small
portion of total cost; private sector and/or other nations
will invest in production and maintenance
SPS
will produce economic spinoffs
Environment, heath, and safety
SPS is potentially less harsh on the environment than
other energy technologies, especially coal
Space
Space is the optimum place to harvest sunlight and
other resources
SPS could be an important component or focus for a
space program
SPS could lay the ground work for space industrialization and/or colonization
SPS would produce spinoffs from R&D and hardware to
other space and terrestrial programs
International considerations
One of the most attractive characteristics of SPS is its
potential for international cooperation and ownership
Con
SPS risks to humans and the environment are potentially greater than those associated with terrestrial
solar technologies
. Major concerns include: health hazards of power transmission and high-voltage transmission lines, land-use,
electromagnetic interference, upper atmosphere effects, and
(sky lab syndrome
SPS could represent a form of U.S. and industrial nations energy imperialism, it is not suitable for LDCs
Ownership of SPS by multinational corporations would
centralize power
251
Pro
Centralization and scale
Future energy needs include large as well as smallscale supply technologies; urban centers and industry
especially cannot be powered by small-scale systems
alone
SPS would fit easily into an already centralized grid
Future energy demand
. Future electricity demand will be much higher than
today
. High energy consumption is required for economic
growth
SPS
as one of a number of future electricity sources
can contribute significant y to energy needs
Even
if domestic demand for SPS is low, there is a
global need for SPS
a
SPS would augment and necessitate a centralized infrastructure and reduce local control, ownership, and
participation in decisionmaking
252
cantly increase as SPS is developed. Furthermore, the U.S. taxpayers would be required to
support this increase and to maintain an ongoing commitment to SPS above and beyond the
RD&D costs, just as they have for the nuclear
industry. The National Taxpayers Union, in
particular, sees SPS as a giant boondoggle
that will allow the aerospace industry to feed
its voracious appetite from the federal
trough. 6 8 Opponents argue that SPS would
n o t a l l e v i a t e u n e m p l o y m e n t substantially
because it provides unsustainable jobs to the
aerospace sector alone. 69 Most opponents also
do not believe that SPS will be cost competitive and argue that the amount of energy
produced by SPS would not justify its large investment cost. 70
The most critical issue for opponents is the
question of opportunity cost, i.e., the cost of
not allocating resources for other uses. 71 They
argue that a commitment to SPS R&D would
jeopardize rather than stimulate the development of other energy technologies. Opponents
also argue that SPS might foreclose opportunities for alternate land use, Federal nonenergy R&D funding, allocation of radio frequencies and orbital slots, resource uses and
jobs.
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND SAFETY
Opponents argue that the present cost estimates are unrealistically Iow. 66 T h e y e x p e c t
that like other aerospace projects and the
Alaskan pipeline, the cost of SPS would signifi5Solar Power Sate//ite: Pub/ic Opinion /ssues Workshop, A
Summary, Feb. 21-22, 1980, Office of Technology Assessment.
K Heiss, testimony in So/ar Power Sate//ite, hearings before
the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications, U S
House of Representatives, Mar 28-30, 1979, pp 132-158
G. Driggers, letter and statement submitted for the record In
So/ar Power Sate//ite, hearings before the Subcommittee on
Space Science and Applications, U S House of Representatives,
pp 407-416
Glaser, Solar Power Satellite D e v e l o p m e n t T h e N e x t
Steps, op clt
2 So/ar Power Sate//ite: Pub/ic Opinion Issues Workshop, A
Summary, Feb. 21-22, 1980, Office of Technology Assessment
Heppenheimer, op. cit
P. Glaser, The Earth Benefits of Solar Power Satellites,
Space Solar Power Review, VOI 1, No 1 &2, 1980
5R. W Taylor, testimony in So/ar Power From Sate//ites, pp
48-51.
K, Bossong, S, Denman, So/ar P o w e r Sate//ites or How to
Make So/ar Energy Centralized, Expensive and Environmenta//y
Unsound, report No. 40, Citizens Energy Project, June 1979
83-316 0 - 81 - 18
253
254
bIbid.
87
Schiefelbein, op. cit.
88A. Lilienfeld, et al , Foreign Service Hea/th Status of Foreign
Service and Other Employees From Selected Eastern European
Posts Fina/ Report, D e p a r t m e n t o f Epldemlology, the John
Hopkins University, July 31,1978
(NRDC) claims that the NIOSH criteria document that will form the basis of the NIOSH
standard, fails to provide a scientifically and
medically sound standard; while it admits the
existence of many low-level effects, it proposes a thermal standard and fails to adequately address low-level non-thermal effects. 89 NRDC argues that the proposed standard was arbitrarily chosen, just like its
predecessor. N R D C r e c o m m e n d s t h a t t h e
criteria document be recommissioned, that a
balanced team of experts work with NIOSH
and another review the document and that a
temporary emergency standard of 1 mW/cm 2
for 10 MHz to 300 GHz, be promulgated.
In spite of the proliferation of microwave
ovens, public resistance to the siting of
technologies that use the radio frequency portion of the electromagnetic spectrum has been
strong and often effective. Local residents
have opposed the construction of broadcasting towers and radar installations, as well
as high voltage transmission Iines (ELF radiation). (See Siting section.)
SPACE
SPS would represent a giant leap in our present commitment to space. To some, this space
component and its supporting infrastructure
wouId be an unnecessary and expensive comm i t m e n t , 9 0 while others enthusiastically embrace SPS as the first step towards an extraterrestrial future for human kind. 91 Others argue
that a commitment to space is desirable, but
that SPS would be the wrong route to get there.
It is likely that the discussion of the SPS concept would precipitate extensive debate over
national priorities, domestic space policy and
the international and military implications of
space.
Proponents of SPS argue that space is the
optimum place to harvest sunlight 92 and other
resources that are needed for an Earth plagued
by overpopulation, resource limitations, and a
threatened environment. M a n y e n v i s i o n a
L o u I~ Slesln,
l e t t e r t o D r A n t h o n y R o b b i n s , NIOSH,
from
99
Greenbaum, op cit
OOOfflce of Technology Assessment, op cit
101 Ibid
Next
CONSIDERATIONS
In generaI, advocates of large-scale technologies Iike SPS maintain that centralized systems are more reliable and easier to implement
than dispersed technologies. Centralized
powerplants also produce environmental impacts that are localized and hence directly affect fewer people. It is argued that dispersed
power generation does not reduce centralized
decisionmaking; in order to be economic these
systems will require mass production, standardization, and regulation and an extensive
distribution and service network. 124 C e n t r a l ized technologies, at least, are more convenient from the users perspective. Advocates
also contend that centralized technologies and
infrastructures are a better means of ensuring
equity among the Nations citizens. 125 For example, many people, predominantly in the inner cities, wilI continue to rely on centralized
delivery systems because they cannot afford
the capital costs to do otherwise.
While the public might not couch the problem in terms of centralization, it is clear that
people will be concerned about technologies
and systems that appear to prevent them from
directly influencing the conditions of their
own Iives. 1 2 6 Public thinking about SPS will
then be determined by the extent of public participation in the planning and decisionmaking
process, experience w i t h c e n t r a l i z e d a n d
dispersed technologies, attitudes towards
energy, space, and utility conglomerates as
well as the perceived influence and benefits
(e g., convenience) of centralized technologies.
FUTURE ELECTRICITY DEMAND
Those in favor of SPS tend to foresee an
energy future characterized by high electricity
consumption and an expanded power grid. 127
Many equate economic well-being to high
e n e r g y g r o w t h r a t e s .128 Even if the United
States is not able to absorb all of an SPS
H Brooks, Critique of the Concept of Appropriate
Technology, In Appropriate Technology and Social Values A
Cr~tlca/ Appraisa/, F Long and A Oleson (eds ) (Cambridge,
M,iss Balllnger Publlshlng C o , 1 9 8 0 )
Offlc P o f T e c h n o l o g y A s s e s s m e n t , o p clt
2)1 bid
258
2ONeill, op cit.
30Glaser, private communication, op clt
J IOffice of Technology Assessment, The Energy Context of
SPS Workshop, Op. clt
I J21bld
A B Lovins, Energy Strategy The Road Not Taken? Foreign Affairs, October 1976
Office of Technology Assessment, The Energy Context of
SPS Workshop, op. clt
sOffIce of Technology Assessment, So/ar Power Sate//ite:
Pub/ic Opinion /ssues Workshop, op clt
Jblbid
Siting
Historically, public debate over the introduction of a technology has been most pronounced at the siting stage. It is during the
siting phase that public opposition to a technology has been most vocal, organized, and effective. Citizens have taken direct action
against the siting of powerplants, airports,
prisons, high-voltage transmission lines and
military facilities by forming local and national groups, publicizing their cause through
the media, taking legal action, demonstrating,
and occasionally resorting to civil disobedience and violence. 1 3 7 In general, siting controversies revolve around issues of environmental effects, health and safety risks, reduced land values and fair compensation, private property rights, opportunity costs, vulnerabiIity to attack, and public participation in
land-use decisions. 138 It is clear that in the
absence of national land-use policies, conflicts
over land-use priorities will escalate as the
population grows, and friction between rural
and urban America and local communities and
regional or national decision makers will increase 9
For SPS, siting is a major issue. * SPS would
be particularly prone to siting difficulties
because of its large contiguous land requirements, its potential military implications,
and its use of nonionizing electromagnetic
radiation (e. g., microwaves or lasers) in power
transmission and distribution. This last factor
is most important because of considerable
uncertainties associated with the environmental and health risks of electromagnetic radiation as well as possible interference with electromagnetic systems. These uncertainties and
-
L ( aldwell, L Hayes, and I MacWhlrtey, Citizem and the
/ nvtronment Case Stucfles in Popu/ar Act/on (Broom lngton, Ind
I ndlana University Press, 1975)
OftIce of Technology Assessment, op clt
lbl(l
*It ts assumed that SPS receivers would be sited on land Offshore locations are also possible and might alleviate many of the
~PS Ian(j-use problems, but are not specifically addressed here
Also not considered here are possible multiple land uses If it can
he shown that land can safely and economically be used for
iltlng 5 PS receivers and other uses (e g , agriculture, pasture
land) simultaneously, then siting on private land might not be a
problem However, In the absence of detailed assessments on the
( osts and environmental Impacts of multiple uses, it IS assumed
I n th IS section that I and IS dedicated to SPS receivers alone
259
Advantages
Laser system
. Does not use microwaves
. Of SPS systems, requires less land area per site and
can deliver smaller units of energy
Mirror system
Most environmentally benign of SPS systems
Least weapons potential of all SPS systems
Least
complex to demonstrate, most immediately
reliable system
Possibly
least expensive system
Solid state
. Can deliver smaller units of power than mirror or
reference system
Land
per site is smaller than mirror or reference
system
. Satellites in GEO (in vulnerable to unplanned reentry)
and can be placed over the ocean
Less
weapons potential than lasers
. Fairly well-developed technology
Reference system
Satellites
in GEO (invulnerable to unplanned reentry)
and can be placed over the ocean
Less
weapons potential than lasers
Fairly
well-developed technology
Possible weapon
Health and safety impact of beam wanders
Weather
modification
Microwave bioeffects
Electromagnetic interference
. Microwave bioeffects
Electromagnetic interference
260
ment local opposition. Residents in these communities were concerned about the health hazards of ELF radiation. Ranchers in Texas were
also worried about the effects on livestock.
Opponents raised other issues including vulnerability to nuclear attack, private property
rights, and decreased land values. 45 Referenda
defeated SEAFARERs construction in several
counties in Michigan, and in an unprecedented
action, the Governor of Michigan rejected the
military program. 146 The Governor of Wisconsin also accused the Navy of suppressing environmental impact studies that reported
possible environmental and health hazards. 147
Although the ELF program is still being funded,
it has yet to find a new site.
Legal action has also been taken against the
Air Forces plans to build PAVE PAWS in Cape
Code, Mass., and Yuba City, Calif. 148 Fear of
adverse microwave bioeffects, especialIy longterm, low-level effects, sit at the heart of the
controversy. While the Air Force stressed that
health risks were negligible and emphasized
the need for national security, local groups
argued that the data did not support the claim
that PAVE PAWS will not jeopardize their
h e a l t h . 149
Several key observations can be made from
these disputes. First, farmers, ranchers, and
rural Americans are becoming an increasingly
active social force working against the intrusion of urban America on their rural quality of
life. As one OTA workshop participant familiar
with powerline siting controversies remarked,
Developers say that high voltage transmission
lines wouldnt make any more noise than a
highway would and the reaction of people is
What do you mean? Thats why were out
here. We dont want to be near the highways . . , . (Rural Americans) are sacrificing
the kind of life they are out therefor, for the
energy excesses of urban America. 150 In many
c Ellis, Sanguine/SEAFARE R, Sierra C/ub Bu//etin, VOI 61,
No 4, April 1976
Brodeur, op clt
1 4 7
S Schiefelbein, The Invisible Threat, Saturday Review,
Sept 5,1979, pp 16-20
40
Brodeur, op cit
4S. Kaufer, The Air Pollutlon You Cant See, New Times,
Mar 6,1978
Office of Technology Assessment, op clt
1 bld
1 bld
$joseph Thlel, T e x a s
State
Department
of
Health,
private
Boffey,
A( ademy s
121 )-1 21 -i
Project
S E A F A R E R Critics
Attack
National
261
APPENDIXES
Appendix A
ALTERNATIVES TO THE
REFERENCE SYSTEM SUBSYSTEMS
Solar-Thermal Power Conversion
The basic operational principle involved in solarthermal-electric power systems is identical to that
of virtually al I conventional ground-based powerplants, with a solar furnace replacing the fuel-fired
furnace or nuclear reactor normally used to heat
the power-cycle working fluid. The 10-MW demonstration plant at Barstow, Calif., is such a solarpowered thermal cycle. Virtually all components
of such power systems have been extensively used
and/or tested on Earth, and hence solar-thermal
systems for potential space applications in the SPS
time frame would enjoy the availability of a large
body of applicable technology, hardware, and experience. Significant problems are foreseen, however, in reducing the mass and complexity of spacebased powerplants to levels that make them competitive with the reference system photovoltaic
power source.
The basic rationale for considering thermal
power cycles is their inherently high energy conversion efficiency. High-performance thermal cycle
power generators on Earth routinely attain overall
efficiencies of more than 40 percent, as compared
with the 17-percent projected efficiency for the reference-system photovoltaics, and it is quite probable that material and component developments
during the next decade or two could extend overall
operational thermal-cycle efficiencies for terrestrial units to over 50 percent. Unfortunately,
however, the space environment is such that these
efficiency levels, even with advanced-technology
power-conversion hardware, are extremely difficult
to achieve. The fundamental problem is that of
heat rejection; that is, in accordance with the dictates of the Second Law of thermodynamics, it is
necessary that any heat engine reject to its environment some of the energy it receives (the ubiquitous
thermal pollution of Earth-based powerplants).
On Earth, effective heat rejection at the low temperatures needed for high thermal efficiency is
readily accomplished by using vast quantities of
cool water or air. In space, on the other hand, all
heat rejection must be accomplished solely by
radiation, a process that depends on the fourth
power of the radiators temperature. Hence efficient heat rejection in space can be accomplished
only at high temperatures, which b y t h e S e c o n d
266
Photovoltaic
Alternatives
Alternative Materials
Alternative photocell materials considered before selecting the reference system options of
single-crystal silicon and galIium aluminure-arsenide were amorphous silicon, polycrystalline silicon, cadreium suIfide, copper iridium selenide, and
polycrystalline gallium arsenide. Although all these
Daniel L Gregory, Alternative Approaches to Space-Based Power
Generation, /ourrra/ of Energy 1, March-April 1977, pp 85-92
Wllllam P C Ilbreath and Kenneth W Billman, A Search for Space
Energy Alternatives, In Radlatlon Energy Conversion In Space, Progres~ In Astronaut/c$ & A e r o n a u t i c s , vo/ 61, Al AA, N Y , ] uly 1978, pp
107-125
G O , Fitzpatrick and E j Brltt, Thermlonlcs and Its Appllcatlon to
the SPS, Ibid, pp 211-221
(For example), W Phllllps and J Mondt, Thermlonlc Energy Conversion Technology Development Program, Progress report No 630-36 (for
June-September 1978), Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Callf , Nov
15, 1978
C V Lau and R Decher, MHD Conversion of Solar Energy, In
Radlatlon Energy Conversion In Space, K W Blllman (ed ), Progress In
Astronautics & Aeronautics, vo/ 61, Al AA, N Y , July 1978, pp 186-200
Robert T Tausslg, Peter H Rose, John F Zumdleck a n d A b r a h a m
Hertz berg, Energy Exchanger Technology Applied to Laser Heated
Engines, Ibid, pp 465-478
1(
W E Smith and R C Weatherston, Studies of a Prototype Wave
Superheater Faclllty for Hypersonic Research report No HF-1056-A-I,
contract AFOSR-TR-58-I 58, AD207244, Cornel I Aeronautical Laboratory,
Buffalo, N Y , December 1958
Abraham Hertzberg and Chan-Veng Lau, A High-Temperature
Ranklne Binary Cycle for Ground and Space Solar Appllcatlons, In
Radiation Energy Conversion in Space, K W Blllman (ed ), Progress In
Astronautics & Aeronautics, vo/ 61, Al AA, N Y , July 1978, pp 172-185
Arthur T Mattlck, Absorption of Solar Radlatlon by Alkali Vapors,
Ibid, pp 159-171
A jay Palmer, Radlatlvely
Sustained (eslum Plasmas for Solar E lectrlc Conversion, Ibid, pp 201-210
Concentration
Another important parameter is the concentration ratio (CR). The selection of CR = 2 for the
reference-system gallium arsenide option was
strongly Influenced by cell temperature considerations. 14 Should cell technology develop that would
retain high efficiency at elevated temperatures,
higher concentrations might prove cost effective,
since both the mass and the cost of reflector
materials are considerably less than those of
photocelIs.
There is good experimental evidence that the
gallium aluminum-arsenide/gal lium-arsenide cells
selected for the SPS could utilize much higher concentration ratios to gain higher overall efficiency.
There has been considerable development in concentrating photovoltaic subsystems for terrestrial
use during the past 2 years, and it is possible that
passive rather than active cooling may be possible.
W Iame$,
Conference,
Pro-
1975,
pp
40,? 408
Richard j Stlrn, Overview of Novel Photovoltaic
Conversion Techniq~i IPS at H Igh I ntenslty Level s, In Radlatlon Energy Conversion In
K W Blllman (ed ), Progress In Astronautics & Aeronautics, VOI
~pal e
fl / I Uly 1978 pp 136-151
I aan, ] url~~on, Multlcolar Solar Cel I Power System for Space, r Ibid,
pp 1 5/! 158
Alternative Microwave
Power Converters
I n addition to the klystron, several other devices
may be capable of converting satellite electric
power to microwaves and transmitting them to
Earth. The solid-state amplifier, based on semiconductor technology, could result in a significant and
beneficial change of the entire system. The latter
serves as one of the four systems considered in this
assessment.
Crossed-Field Amplitier. Thls device in the t e r m
267
Photoklystrons
The photoklystron combines the principles of a
conventional klystron transmitting tube and the
photoemitter in a single device. Sunlight falling on
a photoemissive surface generates a current of
electrons oscillating in such a way as to emit radio
frequency electromagnetic waves. If used on the
SPS, the resultant microwaves could be beamed to
Earth by using a resonator waveguide.
Potential advantages of the photoklystron over
the photovoltaic array/klystron are that it could increase the useful portion of the photoelectric
energy spectrum as compared with photovoltaics
(it may reach efficiencies as high as 50 percent21 as
compared with 15 to 20 percent for conventional
photovoltaics), and that it would greatly simplify
22
the entire space segment of the SPS as compared
with the reference system, by (a) eliminating the
solar celI arrays altogether, (b) eliminating the need
for on board power distribution, (c) eliminating the
rotary joint and sliprings, (d) reducing the individual klystron power and heat dissipation requirements (there would now be many more klystrons
(lbld
C Ibraeth and Blllman, op c[t
}ohn W F r e e m a n , Wllllam B Colson and Sedgwick Slmons, N e w
Method\ for the Conversion of Solar Energy to R F and Laser Power, In
Space danufacturlng 1 I l, Jerry Grey and Chrlstlne Krop (eds ) Al AA,
New York November 1979
268
distributed over a much larger area), thereby increasing the lifetime of individual klystrons, (e)
reducing individual klystron cost, and (f) reducing
rectenna area requirements, since the transmitting
antenna is much larger than that of the reference
system.
One suggested system (fig. 10) consists of a large
elliptical array of photoklystrons, constituting the
collector and antenna. A large mirror (that could
also be a concentrator) would reflect sunlight to
the photoklystrons. Note that even though the mirror and antenna must rotate with respect to each
other to maintain proper Sun-facing and Earthfacing attitudes, as in the SPS reference system,
there is no need for a mechanical connection between them; in fact, their relative alinement is not
at all critical.
Small working models of photoklystrons exist,
but have not yet demonstrated any of the system
characteristics needed for a practical and cost- effective SPS. Hence the concept still remains just
that: a highly interesting and promising prospect
for further intensive study.
ated baseload electricity may prove extremely difficult, it has been suggested that rectennas be
located in shallow offshore waters. * The costs of
such siting would certainly be higher for a given
area than for comparable land-based sites, but the
system costs might be cheaper overall because of
cost reductions in rectenna size. The considerable
body of relevant experience that was developed for
offshore airports would be useful for studying this
possibility. The land areas that have been considered for offshore airports are comparable to the
needs of SPS rectennas (e. g., 50 to 20 km z).
It may be possible to reduce the necessary area
of an offshore rectenna by eliminating most of the
buffer zone and flattening the power distribution
of the beam across the rectenna. Though potentially costly, the option may be taken very seriously by
the European community for whom rectenna siting
on land would prove most difficult. It may also find
uses along the shores of densely populated areas in
the United States.
Offshore Rectennas
Because siting a rectenna near the coastal population centers that will have most of SPS-gener-
Offshore Rectenna
Study NASA
Appendix B
System assumptions:
Array efficiency18 percent*
Degradation 5 percent first year, stable thereafter
Systems life 30 years*
Inverterefficiency90 percent
Battery efficiency 75 percent round trip
Array cost $35 m2*
Additional installation costs assuming roof replacement $0.0
Additional installation costs assuming array flat on
roof $1 3/m 2
Additional installation costs assuming array on ground
$80/m 2
Operation and maintenance1 percent of initial costs
per year
Lightning protection:
Household $500
Industry $0
Inversion and power conditioning$82/kW
Assumptions of SPS reference system
Sample
Calculation
where:
= weighted cost of capital
I
= economic life = book life
N
= Ievelized income taxes =(t/(l-t))(CRF( i/N) -1)
T
x P (TD 1/N)
TD = tax alIowance for accelerated tax
depreciation**
CRF (i/N) x ((2 x (M (1/CRF(i/M)))/(M X
(M+ 1)X i))
M
= tax life
Levelized output = kWh/year/100m2 array
Levelized fixed O&M= O&M($/100m2/yr)X1000/$ X
AF(e,i,N)
AF(e,i,N) = CRF(i/N) X (1 ((1 + e)/(1 + i))N)/(i e)) X
(1 + e)
where e = apparent escalation rate (inflation rate)
Financial assumptions:
I
0 . 1 0
0.30
= 0.06
...
.,
.$5,950
269
83-316 0 - 81 - 19
= 3.9/kWh
Appendix C
Region
2030
237
363
560
319
284
436
680
575
315
480
767
797
1,422
133
2,528
247
3,550
353
912
3,946
World
.
NOTES: 1975 data are mldyear estlmates from Unlted Nations Monthly Bulletin of Statistics Januar~ 1978
1,330
6,080
1,714
7,976
I
II
Ill
Iv
v
VI
Vll
(NA)-North America
(SU/EE)-Soviet Union/East Europe ........,
(WE/JANZ)-West Europe/Japan, Australia
(LA)- Latin America
Historical and projected growth rates of GDP, by region, high and low scenarios (percent/yr)
High scenario
Historical
Region
I
( N A )
II
( S U / E E ) .
Ill
(WE/JANZ)
Iv
(
L
A
)
v
( A F / S E A ) .
( M E / N A f )
VI
(C/CPA)
Vll
World
I + Ill (OECD).
IV + V(Developing)
1950-60
3.3
10.4
50
5.0
39
70
8.0
5.0
4.2
47
1960-75
34
65
52
61
55
98
61
50
44
6.5
Scenario projection
1975-85
43
5.0
43
62
58
72
50
47
4.3
6.3
1985-2000
33
40
34
49
4.8
5.9
4.0
38
34
51
2ooo-15
24
35
25
37
38
42
35
30
2.5
39
2075-30
20
35
20
33
3.4
38
30
27
20
35
Low scenario
Scenario projection
Historical
1950-60
Region
I
( N A )
II
Ill
Iv
v
VI
Vll
(SU/EE).
(WE/JANZ).
(
L
A
(AFI/EA)
(ME/NAf)
(C/CPA)
World
I + Ill (OECD)
IV + V + VI (Developing)
3.3
10.4
50
5.0
39
70
8.0
50
42
47
1960-75
34
65
52
6.1
55
9.8
61
50
44
65
1975-85
31
45
32
47
48
56
33
3.6
3.1
5.0
1 985-2000
20
3.5
2.1
3.6
36
4.6
3,0
27
21
38
2000-15
11
2.5
1.5
30
28
27
25
19
13
29
Energy Systems program croup lnt~matlonal In$tltute for Applied svstems Analvsls
2015-30
1.0
20
1.2
30
24
21
20
17
11
26
(Cambridge,
271
272
3. In general, the IIASA study places great emphasis on the development of nuclear power, and
especially on an explosive growth in fast breeders after 2000. Although a number of countries,
including France, Japan, and the Soviet Union, have announced aggressive plans to install
breeders over the next several decades, it should be remembered that questions still remain as
to breeder reactor safety, reliability and operating costs. (See ch. 6 for a comparison of
breeders and other baseload power sources.) IIASAs high expectations for breeder development are by no means universalIy shared.
Percent of global secondary electrical demand met by nuclear powerllASA
1975
Conventional reactors
Breeders
Total
2000
20
0.0
20
2030
Low
High
Low
High
271
044
275
294
067
303
19,2
40,6
498
22.9
38,2
611
4. These higher estimates for the amount of coal used for synfuels depend on a number of
assumptions, including the greatly increased use of nuclear power to replace coal in electricity
generation.
5. The following CONAES study estimates for the U.S. should be compared with the IIASA
estimates for North America (see No. 1, p. 271 for population and economic figures; assume
Canadian population is approximately 10 percent of total),
Population in 2070279 million (Bureau of Census Series I I projection, with no allowance for illegal immigration).
Average growth in GNP, 1980-20102 percent per year ]
99
120
131
180
Direct comparisons are difficult because of the different time frames and geographical areas
examined. The CONAES A projection, no growth in energy demand over the next 30 years, has
no parallel in the IIASA study. The IIASA low scenario is slightly higher than the CONAES series
B projections; the high scenario is approximately equal to CONAES C. Population estimates are
compatible; however, CONAES 2 percent per year average GNP growth rate is much lower
than IIASAs high scenario. It is approximately equal to the low scenario forecast.
Insofar as the two studies are comparable, CONAES estimates are somewhat lower than
IIASAs, with the more radical CONAES A projection much lower. The difficulty lies in determining what this might mean on a global scale. Lower estimates for the United States may hold
true for other Western industrialized areas, but cannot be extended to developed centrally
planned economies or to the developing world, where growth rates are expected to be higher
than in the OECD. The CONAES report itself states that: Even if energy conservation in the
United States accomplishes a great deal domestically, it will be more than offset by demand
growth in countries at the takeoff stage of development Global energy consumption in 2010
is estimated to be probably three to four times what it is now, with electrical consumption
rising at even faster rates. b
6. The Case Western Reserve and World Energy Conference estimates for future energy and electricity use are as follows:
Energy In Transltlon, 1985-2010 (Washington, D C , National Academy of S, Iences, 1979), p 626
z I bid , p 643
Ibid , p 645
1 bid , p 668
Energy In a Ftnfte VVor/d A G/oba/ Systems Ana/ysls, Energy Systems Progr~m Group, I nternatlona I I nstltute for Appl led Systems Analysis
(Cambridge, Mass Ballinger Publishing Co , 1981), p 44o
Energy In Transition, p 626 )
1975
2000
2025/2020
CWRU
WEC
C WRU
WEC
OECD
.
.
.
.
...
SU/EE . . . . . . . . . . . .
146.8
55.0
3453
98.3
266.2
126,1
618,8
205.7
395.1
235.0
Developing,
....,...
Global. . . . . . . . .
37.7
239.5
103.0
5466
174.0
566.3
296,8
1,121.3
434.2
1,064.3
End-use electricity demand (Quads electric) (estimated by Clav. and Dupas from model data)
2000
1975
WEC
CWRU
WEC
55.8
152
102
812
386
216
135
737
106,9
353
40.2
182,4
66.1
353
465
1479
12,5
3.9
1.8
18,2
OECD
.,
SU/EE
:
D e v e l o p i n g
. ,
G l o b a l ,
2025/2020
CWRU
Compare these figures to the lower IIASA estimates in figure C-1. The worldwide distribution
of LEPP in 2025 for the CWR model is:
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
340
320 300
280 260
240
220
200
180
20
60
F
E
40
D
c
20
B
A
a
b
20
c
d
40
e
f
60
8 Nb per zone
Preliminary Evaluation of Ground and Space Solar
273
274
7. The World Bank report on Energy in the DevelopingCountries projects energy use and demand
over the next decade. From 1973-78, growth in electricity consumption in developing countries
averaged 8 percent per year, compared to 3.5 percent in developed countries; the Bank estimates this will continue through the 1980s. The Bank reports that in 1980 Oil-Importing Developing Countries (OIDC) invested $18.5 billion in electric power (70 percent for generation, 20
percent for distribution, 10 percent for transmission) out of a total of $24.6 billion invested in
all forms of energyover 75 percent. This is expected to more than double, to $39.7
bilIion/year, by 1990.
The amount of installed capacity is estimated to be 241 gW in 1980, rising to 523.7 in 1990.
Large increases will be made in gas and nuclear fired generators though absolute levels will remain relatively low; hydro power will remain the largest single source, at approximately 40 percent of the total, with oil generation declining rapidly from 37 to 25 percent.
Energy In the Deve/op/ng Countrle>,
Appendix D
MicrowavesIonosphere
Interaction
W E Gordon and L M Duncan, Reviews of Space ScienceSPS impacts on the Upper Atmosphere, Astronautics arid Aeronautics, july/
August 1980, VOI 18, NoS 7,8, p 46
atW unquantified health effects were identified for the coal SYStem used.
SOURCE:
Program Assessment Report, Statement of Flnr)vrgs, Satellite Power Systems, Concept Development and Evaluation Program, DOEIER-0085, November 1980.
275
LORAN-C), and MF (300 kHz to 3 MHz, AM).3 However, neither Arecibo nor Platteville is equipped to
generate a beam of SPS frequency and power density. Instead the experiments were performed at
lower frequencies and power densities and the
results extrapolated to SPS conditions using the
scaling law:
P
SPS
HF
=
f2
SPS
f2
HF
where Psps and PHF are the power of the SPS beam
(i.e., 23 mW/cm2) and heating facility beam respectively, and f is the frequency of the beam (i. e., f sps
= 2.45 GHz).4 This extrapolation is thought to be
valid only if the primary heating mechanism is
ohmic (i. e., heating by CoIIisions between ions). This
assumption has been verified over a limited range
of frequencies. By increasing the Platteville and
Arecibo power densities and maximum frequency,
confidence in the sealing theory could be improved. Experiments are also needed to test the effects of localized ionosphere heating on telecommunication systems operating at frequencies above
3 MHz.
Table D.2.Water Requirements for
Alternative Energy Technologies
Cubic meters
per gigawatt year
Conventional coal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77x 106
Light water reactor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37x 10
Liquid metal fast breeder reactor . . . . . . . . .
32X 1O6
Coal gasification/combined cycle. . . . . . . . .
14x 106
Magnetically confined fusion . . . . . . . . . . . .
39x 106
Satellite power system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 1 x 103
Central station terrestrial photovoltaics . . . = 1 x 104
Technology
tromagnetic wave propagating through the ionosphere iS focused and defocused as a resuIt of normal variations in the index of refraction. As the incident wave refracts into regions of lesser density,
the electric field intensity increases. Thermal pressure generated by ohmic heating drives the plasma
from the focused areas, thereby amplifying the initial perturbation. Although the heated volume in
the D and E regions is confined essentially to that
of the beam, the heated particles in the F region
wiII traverse magnetic field Iines so that large-scale
field-alined striations or density irregularities form.
These striations reflect VHF and UHF radiowaves
specularly, causing interference and the abnormal
long-range propagation of the signals.
Less is known about the effects of SPS-type
heating in the F region than the D and E layers. The
power scaling law in the upper ionosphere may differ from that in the lower regions (i.e., the scaling
law for thermal self-focusing instability may follow
a 1/f3 dependence rather than the 1/f2 dependence
valid for ohmic heating). Experimental data is
Fnv/ronmental Assessment for the Satell/te Power System Concept
Development and Eva/uatlon Program Effects of /onospher/c Heat/rig on
Te/ecomm[/n[catlons,
DOE/NASA report, DOE/E R 10003-TI, August 1980
t nv/ronmenta/ Assessment for the Sate//lte Power System C o n c e p t
Det eloprrrenf and Eva/uat/on Program, DOE/E R-0069, August 1980
Troposphere 6
SPS launch effluents injected into the troposphere could modify local weather and air quality
on a short-term basis. These changes would be due
primarily to the formation and dispersion of a
launch site ground cloud that consists of exhaust
gases, cooling water, and some sand and dust.
While sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and carbon
monoxide concentrations would not be significant,
nitrogen oxides and water vapor are of concern.
Nitrogen oxides (NO x , especially NO, in the
ground cloud, might under certain conditions, present problems for air quality. The projected ground
cloud concentrations themselves are not thought
to violate the short-term national ambient air quality standards that are expected to be promulgated
in the near future, but if ambient concentrations
are already high, a violation could occur. NOX and
SO X in the ground cloud could contribute to an increase in localized acid rain but this is expected to
be small.
The ground cloud will also contain about 400 to
650 tons of water. While having a negligible impact
on air quality, water vapor, especially in association with launch-generated heat and condensation
E Morrison, National Telecommunlcatlons
and Information AdmlnIstratlon, private communlcatlon,
Feb 17, 1981
Most of this section IS derived from Ertv/ronrnenta/ Assessment for the
Satell/te Power $ystem, Concept Development and tvaluatlon Program,
DO E/ ER-0069, August 1980
nuclei could have a measurable, although shortterm effect on weather. In particular, under certain
meteorological conditions, heat and moisture
could enhance convective activity, and induce
precipitation. While the frequency and degree of
such effects are uncertain, none of the projected
weather effects are thought to be serious. Cloudcondensation and ice-forming nuclei would also be
produced in the ground cloud. The effects of the
latter on weather cannot be reliably estimated at
this time. The high abundance of the former in the
ground cloud is thought to be meteorologically important; cloud-condensation nuclei could change
the frequency and persistence of fog and haziness.
It has been suggested that because of the large size
and frequency of HLLV launches, cumulative effects might occur. More research is needed not
only for SPS, but of weather and climate phenomena in general.
Research needs include:
refine and test ground-cloud formation and
transport predictive models as well as weather
and climate models,
update ground-cloud composition as systems
are developed; conduct appropriate observations of rocket launches,
study effects on local weather of prospective
launch sites including possible cumulative effects, and
consider NO effects and possible ways to
X
reduce levels given a range of Iikely future
standard levels and meteorological conditions; refine and validate theoretical models
for simulating NOx dispersion,
278
Solar Power
Satellites
Uncertainty
The frequency of occurrence of suitable
meteorological conditions. The extent of
injection of cloud condensation and iceforming nuclei. The duration and scale of
the effects of the nuclei and the thermal
energy inputs. The importance of
anticipated small increases in cloud
population, precipitation, haze, and other
meteorological effects to the environs of
the launch site.
Chemical-electrical interactions in the
ionosphere, the effectiveness of mitigating
strategies, and effects on
telecommunications.
HLLV flights will deposit a large amount of The quantitative increases. Whether the
water and hydrogen above 80 km. The globally averaged increase in water content
globally averaged water content is likely to will be sufficient to alter thermospheric
be increased by amounts ranging from 8 composition or dynamics in a significant
percent at 80 km to factors of up to 100 or way. Whether the increase will result in a
more above 120 km. The injected water and chronic, global-scale partial depletion of the
hydrogen will increase the natural upward ionosphere of sufficient magnitude to
flux of hydrogen by as much as a factor of degrade telecommunications. Whether the
2.
increased hydrogen flux will significantly
increase exospheric density and/or modify
thermospheric properties.
Injection of water vapor from HLLV The scale and persistence of the clouds,
launches in the altitude range of about 80 especially in view of poorly understood
to 90 km is likely to result in the formation co m p et i n g
h eating
cooling
and
of noctilucent clouds.
mechanisms. Whether cumulative effects
could arise and lead to globally significant
effects such as changes in climate
Resolution
Design and implement appropriate
observational programs associated with
Design and
implement
observational
programs to obtain data on the occurrence
and characteristics of high-altitude clouds
formed during rocket launches. Improve
knowledge of the natural atmosphere near
the mesopause and develop and implement
models to better simulate the effects of
water and hydrogen injection on cloud
formation.
Design and implement experiments in the
magnetosphere to obtain data for improving
understanding
of
magnetospheric
phenomena of interest and provide system
design guidance where appropriate.
. .
SOURCE: Program Assessment Report, Statement of Firrdmgs, Satellite Power Systems Concept Development and Evaluation Program, DOEIER-0085, November 1980.
279
Ibid
$u prc? note 9
5u[)r~ note 6
280
Ionosphere
The ionosphere is used extensively in telecommunication systems to propagate and reflect radio
waves. The injection and diffusion of SPS launch
propellants into the ionosphere could alter the density of the electrons and ions that are responsible
for the unique properties of the ionosphere, thereby degrading the performance of the telecommunications systems. Other effects might also occur,
such as enhanced airglow and increased electron
temperature, but the Iikelihood and consequences
of these impacts are yet to be determined. 20
A reliable assessment of the effects of launch effluents on the D-region of the ionosphere cannot be
made at this time. However, two apparently counteractive effects have been postulated. z The emission of water vapor into the D-region is Iikely to
deplete the ionospheric plasma density. This would
reduce radio wave absorption in the daytime ionosphere and result in propagation anomalies. On the
other hand, NO X , produced by frictional heating
during reentry, could engender the formation of
ions in the D-region. It is believed that enough NO X
would be deposited in the region to compensate for
the reduction of the plasma due to water vapor. A
recent lower ionosphere experiment suggests that
anomalies in the propagation of VLF signals were
due to the effects of rocket effluents. While the
experiment was not conclusive, it is clear that detectable effects might occur that warrant further
study.
As in the D-region, current understanding of the
launch effluent effects on the E-region is not very
advanced. Rocket propellants would be directly injected only into the lower E-region because HLLV
engines would be shut off at 124 km.23 Some effluents would enter the upper E-region by upward
diffusion. Exhaust products emitted above the Eregion in LEO by PLVS, POTVS and HLLV could also
diffuse and settle downwards. The impacts of these
effluents on the E-region, however are very uncertain. It is possible that the deposition of ablation
materials during reentry could augment a radio
signal altering phenomenon called sporadic E in
which regions of greatly enhanced electron concentration are created. In addition, the coupling
between the ionosphere and magnetosphere, the
OSupra note 9
Ibid
C Meltz and J A Darold, VLF OMEGA Observations of the ionospheric Disturbance produced by an Atlas HEAO-C Launch, In Proceedings of the Workshop/Symposium on the Prellmlnary Evaluation of
the Ionospheric Disturbances Associated WIIh the HEAO-C Launch, With
Applfcatlons to the SPS Ertvfronmental Assessment, M Mendlllo and B
Baumgardner (eds ), DOE/NASA report Conf 7911108, August 1980
2Supra note 9
M Mendlllo and B Baumgardner, Proceedings of the Workshop/Sumposlum on the Preliminary Eva/uatlon of the Ionospheric Disturbances
Associated W/th the HEAO-C Launch, W/th Appl{catlons to the SPS Env/ronmenta/ Assessment, DOE/NASA Report Conf 7911108, August 1980
Ibid
Supra note 9
5
Supra note13
blbld
282
Effect
Cause
1. Dosage enhancement of
trapped relativistic
electrons
2. Artificial ionospheric
current
System/activities impacted
Space equipment
Modification of human
space activity
Powerline tripping
Pipeline corrosion (probably
unimportant)
May reduce magnetic storm
interference with Earth and
space-based systems
Interference with optical
Earth sensors
Signal scintillation for
space-based communications
Environmental Assessment for the Satellite Power System, Concept Development and Evaluation
ProgrammAtrnosptrericEffects, DOEIER-0090,
November 1980.
Power level
(times 6,720 MW)
1
-50d B(10-5)
-90d B(10-9)
-lOOd B(10 1O)
Although it is known that the antenna patterns for these frequencies would be rather different from that of the reference system, current antenna theory is inadequate to predict a
detailed spatial pattern.
Spurious sideband noise generation from
the klystrons outside of the central frequency
is estimated to be no greater than 200 d B of
the central frequency at a separation of 8 to 10
MHz from the center frequency. Filtering may
be able to reduce this to levels which would
not cause appreciable interference in most
cases This is one constraint in the separation
necessary between an SPS frequency assignment and the boundaries of the 2.45 GHz International Scientific and Medical band. These
considerations apply after the klystron tubes
have warmed up. Since, on the average the
4
C, L) \rndt and L Leopold, Environmental Conslderatlons for the
MI( rowav(, [learn from a Solar Power Satel I lte, I )th /nter\oclety
Energy
( of)kerslrv) I nglneer~ng ( orrferrwce, San Diego, Callf , August 1978
Electromagnetic=Compatibiiity
283
impacts
SOURCE:
Power
100,000 klystrons in the antenna can be expected to fail at a rate of five per day, out of
band radiation as they fail and as they warm
up after being replaced may be greater than
during their operating period.
The reflected beam at 2.45 GHz, at the harmonics, as welI as at other frequencies generated by the rectenna structure itself, would
result in a complicated power spectrum which
wouId change in time as the rectenna ages.
The radiation patterns are expected to be 100
or broader and partially directive. A capability
to monitor and locate rectenna intermodulation emissions is required to allow timely
structural repair to assure no interference with
sensitive terrestrial and aircraft equipment.
Optical and thermal emissions. The reference
satellites would reflect sunlight in three major
ways41
p. 43,
42
P A E
and
M Stokes (eds ), Workshop on
Power
Effects on Optical and Radio Astronomy, CON F-7905143
(DOE ],
I
Power
Apparent 1
of Solar Power Satellites,
1980, pp 175190
284
radiation.
Because an appreciable
amount of the sunlight which is intercepted by
the laser satellite would be absorbed and reemitted as heat, the satellite, whether in CEO
or LEO, would be a diffuse infrared radiator
and would radiate some energy at microwave
frequencies as well.
Laser beam characteristics. The two major present laser alternatives operate near 5 microns
(CO laser) or 10 microns (CO 2 laser) infrared
wavelengths. Because the beams are highly
directive, they would be only slightly observable in the infrared except for receivers placed
very near the laser ground stations. Scattered
light from the beam would be detectable in
the lower part of the atmosphere.
Heat
Laser Satellites
Mirror Satellites
For a more detailed discussion of the biophysics of microwave interactions with blologtcal systems, see S Baranskl and P Czelskl, i310/oglca/
Effects of Microwaves, Dowden, Hutchlnson and Ross, Inc , Pennsylvania,
1976
R D Phllllps, et al , Comp//atlon and A$$e$\ment
of Microwave BIoe f f e c t s A Se/ect/ve Rev/ew of tfre L Iterature on the Blo/og)ca/ L ffectj of
M i c r o w a v e s In Re/at/on to tfre $ate///te Power $y~tem ($P\), final report,
DOE/NASA, May 1978
E Berman, A Review of SPS-Related Microwaves on Reproduction
and Teratology, I n The Flna / Proceedings of the $o/ar Power Sate///te Program Rev/ew, Apr 22-25, 1980, DOE/NASA report Conf -800491, July
1980
83-316 0 - 81 - 20
285
286
Experiments testing the effects on the behavioral and navigational capability of birds subjected to acute and chronic exposures of 2.45
GHz fields. Some mortality has resulted from
exposure to 130 to 160 mW/cm 2 microwaves
and has suggested that species and body geometry determine tolerance levels. Generally,
no statistically significant effects have been
detected at power densities of 0.1 to 2 5
mW/cm 2. Some birds chronically exposed to
25 mW/cm2 have exhibited an increase of aggressive behavior, although the number of
birds is statistically insignificant.
Laser Bioeffects
Lasers are unique among light sources because
of their capacity to deliver an enormous amount of
energy to a very small area at a great distance.47
The primary biological consequence of this property is heating. However, nonthermal mechanisms
C H Dodge, Rapporteur, Workshop on Mechanisms Underlying Effects of Long-Term, Low-Level, 2450 MHz Radlatlon on People, organized
by the National Research Council Committee on Satelllte Power Systems,
Environmental Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences, ] uly 15-17,
1980
4
E- Kle IrI Hazards of the Laser, Hosplta/ Practice, May 1967, pp
48-5 J
have also been suggested. 48 For example, photochemical reactions are thought to be responsible
for damage of biological organisms exposed to
ultraviolet lasers.49 High laser power densities may
also cause injury from shockwaves or high electric
field gradients. 50 Biological electromagnetic interference effects have also been proposed. 5 1
Clearly, the mechanisms of interaction between
laser light and biological entities are not completely understood. Like microwaves, little is known
about the cumulative or delayed effects of chronic
exposure to low levels of laser light.52 In general,
the higher the power and the shorter the period, the
greater the damage.53 The extent of the effect also
depends markedly on the characteristics of the irradiated biological material. Of primary importance is a tissues absorptivity, reflectivity, water
content, and thermal conductivity.
The organ of the body most sensitive to laser
radiation is the eye. The ocular media of the human
eye transmit light with wavelengths between 400
and 1,400 nm. 54 There are two transmission peaks in
the near infrared at 1,100 and 1,300 nm. Light in the
visible and near infrared spectrum is focused
towards the retina. The refraction of the laser beam
by the ocular media amplifies the light intensity by
several orders of magnitude. 55 As a result, in this
spectral region the retina can be damaged at radiation levels which are far less than those which produce corneal or skin damage.
For lasers that emit wavelengths outside of the
visible and near infrared range, the ocular effects
are quite different. At ultraviolet wavelengths, for
example, light is absorbed primarily by the cornea,
which can be injured by photochemical reactions.
Infrared radiation is not focused on the retina
V T Tomberg, Non-Thermal Blologlcal Effects of Laser Beams,
Nature, VOI 204, Nov 28, 1964, pp 868-870
Department of the Alr Force, Ffea/th ~azdrd~ Contro/ for Laser Radlatlon, AFOSH Standard 161-10, May 30, 1980
[)lbld
M Zaret, Laser Appl Icatlon In the F Ield of Medlclne, ZAMP, VOI 16,
1965, pp 178-79
M L Wolbarsht a n d D H Sllney, N e e d e d M o r e D a t a o n Eye
Damage, Laser Focus, December 1974, pp 11-13
Supra note 47
W T Ham, et al , The Eye Problem In Laser Safety, Arch Env/ronmenta/ Hea/th, VOI 20, February 1970, pp 1 ;6-160
D H Sllney and B C Fresler, Evaluation of Optical Radlatlon
Hazards, App/ied Opt/es, VOI
No 1, j anuar~ 1973, pp 1-24
12,
287
288
* Supra note 47
American Natlona/ Standard for the Safe Use of Lasers, ANSI (R)
Z136 1-1979, American National Standard Institute
D H S1 Iney and D L Cono\,er, Nonlonlzlng Radlatlon In /rrdustr/a/
Errv/ronmenta/ Hea//h, L V Cralley and P R Atkins (eds ) ( N e w Y o r k
Academic Press, 1975), pp 157-172
*See text for discussion of Ionlzlng radlatlon effects
6bEnvironmen/a/
Assessment for the Sate///te Power 5 y$tern Concept L)eve/opment and Eva/uatJon Program, DOE/E R-0069, August 1980
lbld
Program Assessment Report, Statement of F/nd/ng~, Satelllte Power
System Concept Development and Evaluation Program, DOE/E R-0085,
November 1980
lbld
(lbld
7 Jupra note 66
Baranskl and P Czerskl, L310/oglca/ Effects of M/crowave~,
Hut, hlnson and Ross, Pennsylvania, 1976
7
\upra note 66
Dowden,
Appendix E
Part 2
Like Intelsat, Inmarsat is a commercial, profitmaking venture with a corporate structure and independent legal personality. Comsat is the U.S. signatory, holding the largest original share at 17 percent; Great Britain is second with 12 percent, the
Soviet Union third with 11 percent. Initial capitalization was set at $200 milIion.
Because it could participate on a more equitable
basis, the Soviet Union joined Inmarsat; one conse!R IC hard Col lno, The /rite/sat De flnlt/ve Arrangements (Geneva European Broadcasting Union, 1973), p 11-12
Intel}at Annual Report 1980 Intelsat, Washington, D C , p 21
Operating Agreement on Inmarsat, 1976, In Space Law, p 445
289
quence was Soviet insistence that nongovernmental signatories e.g., Comsat and Japans Kokusai
Denshin, Ltd.be guaranteed by their governments. It has been pointed out that the Soviet
Union is disinclined to enter mixed organizations
involving states and private enterprise, preferring
to deal only with other states. G
Part 3
The vast majority of Intelsat signatories were
government communications agencies. Only in a
few instances, such as Comsat for the United
States, and Interspazio for Italy, were the signatories separate corporate entities designed for communication satellite operations. One result was a
conflict of interest within agencies that were involved in other communication systems, especialIy
underwater cables. Differences of opinion also developed between Comsat, which wanted to expand
Intel sat into as many other areas, including domestic communications, as possible; and agencies that
wanted Intelsats scope restricted to international
telephone and television relay.
At the beginning, Comsat, with headquarters in
Washington, D. C., was the managing agency; American launchers were used through NASA; and the
satellites themselves were built by U.S. firms
(Hughes for Intelsat I, II, IV, and IV-A; TRW for lntelsat III; Ford Aerospace for Intel sat V). The initial
agreement was structured in such a way that U.S.
participation could never be less than 50.6 percent. 7
Initially, participation by lesser developed counin numbers, tensions developed between LDCs,
Europeans, and the United States over the distribution of benefits. One issue concerned the relative
investment between satelIites and ground stations.
Since users were responsible for building their own
Earth stations, LDCs and others with fewer resources and lower usage urged Intelsat to increase
the size and complexity of the satellite component
in order to reduce Earth-station costs.
As European aerospace capabilities matured,
members began to lobby for larger shares of Intelsat R&D and procurement contracts. Even when
Part 4
Unlike ESRO, which had its own facilities, ELDO
was entirely a coordinating body for separate national efforts. The initial planning called for a
British first stage, a French second stage, a German
third stage, and so on. Launches were to take place
in Woomera, Australia. The major countries had
widely differing interests. France was interested in
an across-the-board capability to compete with the
superpowers and demonstrate French independence and prestige, an aim directly connected with
French military programs in nuclear submarines
and intermediate range ballistic missiles. France
feared that the United States would not provide
launch services for French military satellites or for
programs that promised to compete commercially
with the United States.
Germany was more interested in private commercial ventures, and was much more willing to
cooperate with the United States. Great Britain,
faced by the mid-1960s with severe financial constraints and enjoying a close relationship with the
United States, preferred less expensive programs in
telecommunications and remote sensing.
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS,
AND GLOSSARY
audio frequency
American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
A-sat
antisatellite
Aramco Arabian-American Oil Co.
BBB
blood brain barrier
BRH
Bureau of Radiological Health
British thermal unit
Btu
bui
brain uptake index
CB
citizens band
CEP
Citizens Energy Project
centimeter
CMEA
Council of Mutual Economic
Assistance (Comecon) (East Europe,
Soviet Union, Cuba)
CNS
central nervous system
CONAES Committee on Nuclear and
Alternative Energy Sources (National
Academy of Sciences)
COPUOS Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer
Space (United Nations)
COTV
cargo orbital transfer vehicle
Comsat Communications Satellite Corp.
cpm
counts per minute
CW
continuous wave
decibels
dB
dc
direct current
Department of Defense
DOD
Department of Energy
DOE
DMSO
dimethyl sulfoxide
electric discharge laser
EDL
EEG
electroencephalogram m
EKG
electrocardiogram
ELDO
European Space Vehicle Launcher
Development Organization
extremely low frequency
ELF
EMF
electromagnetic fields
electromagnetic pulse
EMP
EMR
electromagnetic radiation
EOTV
electric orbital transfer vehicle
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA
evoked response
ER
ESA
European Space Agency
European Space Research
ESRO
Organization
Federal Communications Commission
FCC
Food and Drug Administration
FDA
FEL
free electron laser
CDL
gas discharge laser
GNP
Gross National Product
GHz
gigahertz (109 cycles per second)
gigawatt (109 watts)
Gw
geostationary orbit
GEO
HEAO-C High Energy Astronomical
Observatory-C
high-energy laser
HEL
Department of Health, Education and
HEW
Welfare
high frequency
HF
high frequency auditory limit
HFAL
heavy-lift launch vehicle
HLLV
horseradish peroxidase
HRP
high-voltage transmission line
HVTL
hertz: a unit of frequency equal to
Hz
one cycle per second
high-atomic-number, high-energy
HZE
particles
International Astronautical Federation
IAF
intercontinental ballistic missile
ICBM
International Energy Agency
IEA
Institute of Electrical and Electronics
IEEE
Engineers
industrial, scientific, and medical
ISM
International Telecommunication
ITU
Union
kilogram
kg
kilometer
km
kilowatt (103 watts)
kw
light amplification by stimulated
laser
emission of radiation
low-Earth orbit
LEO
LMFBR liquid metal fast breeder reactor
LORAN long-range navigation
Megahertz (106 cycles per second)
MHz
microwave power transmission system
MPTS
megawatt (10 watts)
MW
mW/cm 2 milliwatts per square centimeter
National Academy of Sciences
NAS
National Aeronautics and Space
NASA
Administration
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NATO
National Bureau of Standards
NBS
nonionizing electromagnetic radiation
NIEMR
National Institute of Occupational
NIOSH
Safety and Health
Natural Resources Defense Council
NRDC
Organization for Economic
OECD
Cooperation and Development
(United States, Canada, Japan, West
Europe)
OMEGA generic name for long-range
navigation
OPEC
Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries
293
OSHA
OTA
PLV
POTV
prf
Q
Qe
R&D
rem
RFP
SAM
SAR
SEPS
SPS
SRBC
SSTO
STS
t
TVA
UHF
VER
VHF
WHO
Glossary
Ablateto remove by cutting, erosion, melting,
evaporation, or vaporization.
Aerosola suspension of insoluble particles in a
gas.
Albedothe fraction of incident light or electromagnetic radiation that is reflected by a surface
or body.
Ambientthe natural condition of an environmental factor.
Amplitudethe maximum departure of the value
of an alternating wave from the average value.
Artifact a product of artificial character due to an
extraneous agent.
Attenuation a reduction in amplitude of electromagnetic energy.
Beam widththe angular width of a beam of radiation, measured between the directions in which
the power intensity is a specified fraction, usualIy one-half, of the maximum.
Bias currentthe electric current applied to a
device (e.g., a transistor) to establish a reference
level for operation.
Biotathe plants and animals of a region.
Brayton cycle a method of driving a turbine in
which a gas is compressed and heated. The
most familiar use is for aircraft gas turbine
engines. An alternative to the Rankine cycle.
Bremsstrablung radiation radiation from charged
particles that are decelerated in a magnetic
field.
British thermal unit-quantity of heat needed t o
raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit
at or near 39.2 F.
Circadianpertaining to events that occur at approximately 24-hr intervals, such as certain biological rhythms.
Cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)particles on
which water vapor condenses to form water
droplets, that in turn form clouds and fogs.
Convection-circulatory motion that occurs in the
atmosphere due to nonuniformity in temperature and density, and the action of gravity.
Cortical tissuestissue from the outer layer of gray
matter of the brain.
Cosmic rayatomic nuclei of heterogeneous, extremely penetrating character that enter the
Earths atmosphere from outer space at speeds
approaching that of Iight.
Couplingthe mechanism by which electromagnetic energy is delivered to a system or device.
CW lasercontinuous wave laser, as distinguished
from a pulsed laser. A laser emitting for a period in excess of 0.25 second.
Cytogenetics a branch of biology that studies
296
Geostationary Earth orbit (GEO) the equatorial orbit at which a satellite takes 24 hr to circle the
Earth so that it is stationary as viewed from
Earth; altitude approximately 36,000 km.
Geosynchronous Earth orbitthe orbit at which a
satelIite takes 24 hr to circle Earth. (The satelIite
may or may not appear to be stationary above a
point on Earth.)
Harmonic frequency a component frequency of an
electromagnetic wave that is a multiple of the
fundamental frequency.
Heliostat a mirror device arranged to follow the
Sun as it moves through the sky and to reflect
the Suns rays on a stationary collector.
Hematology-a branch of biology that deals with
the blood and blood-forming organs.
Heavy-lift launch vehicle (HLLV) a proposed launch
vehicle used to transport large masses of material from Earth to low- Earth orbit.
Illuminance irradiance; rate of energy per solid
angle measured at a given point.
Immunology a science that deals with disease resistance and its causes.
Intermodulation the mixing of the components of
a complex wave with each other in a nonlinear
circuit. The result is that waves are produced at
frequencies related to the sums and differences
of the frequencies of the components of the
original waves.
Intrabeam viewing viewing the laser source from
within the beam. The beam may either be direct
or specularly refIected.
Ionan atom or group of atoms that carries a
positive or negative electrical charge as a result
of having lost or gained one or more electrons.
Ionizing radiation radiation capable of producing
ions by adding electrons to, or removing electrons from, an electrically neutral atom, group
of atoms, or molecule.
Ionospherethe part of Earths atmosphere beginning at an altitude of about 5 km extending and
outward 500 km or more, containing free electrically charged particles by means of which
radio waves are reflected great distances
around the Earth.
Irradiance (E) radiant fIux density arriving at given
surface in units of watts-per-square-centimeter
(W/cm 2); illuminance (as measured by a detector).
Joule (J) unit of energy (1 watt-see) under the international system. As a thermal unit, 1 joule
equals 0.239 calories. Since the calorie is defined as the energy required to heat 1 gram of
water from 40 to 50 C, 4.184 joules is the
equivalent of one calorie.
Glossary
297